three dirty words.

watch this space.

2007-02-11T12:15:00.000-05:00

Life has been so incredibly busy that three dirty words experienced a stasis. But, assuming I can get the dyke trophy wife on board, three dirty words might soon experience a premature awakening due to global warming.

gw.

Sex is the question...

2006-09-23T13:17:00.000-04:00

But is "yes" the right answer?

This joke used to be funny to me when I had this idealistic view that the 90's Aids Awareness boom had caused people to really put safe sex into practice. Now, I'm not so sure.

At work, I happened to be reading this GQ article asking, "Who's practicing safe sex anymore?" and it scared me. The opening shot related a particular grou of professionals who bragged about their unsheathed sexual exploits. One man said something to the effect that the only thing that's really ever asked is, "Are you on the Pill?" and only after penetration has already occurred. Another male said that contracting STDs was no big deal, because most of them could be cured with a shot anyway. What disturbed me is that a couple of these men were in health professions.

But what about the ones that can't be cured with a shot? As a black female, I'm concerned about this seemingly lackadaisical attitude towards unsafe sex, because my demographic happens to be at highest risk for HIV and AIDS in this country. Most people are uninformed to this fact because it doesn't directly affect them, and a lot of people really don't see this as a potential pandemic. But if a doctor is not the least bit concerned about contracting The Clap, who's going to take the initiative to bring awareness to black women, and everyone for that matter, regarding the dangers of unsafe sex?

To add insult to injury, one of my coworkers told me about a news article concerning a dating website for people with STDs called Positive Singles. Now, I'm typically not judgmental as to what circumstances people face, but the website seems a bit tongue-in-cheek--besides its seeming attempt to allow infectees (sorry if that sounds harsh) to have normal, "positive" (a double entendre, perhaps?) dating lives, is it also sending mixed messages that add to the casual stance towards practicing safe sex?

If the men in that article I read, as well as the crop of "positive" dating sites, are any indication towards a shift in concern for our sexual health--and not just in the exercise of healthy sexual desire, but in the risks associated with it--then I fear what this regression is going to teach younger children.

Whatever the answer is, please remember that your Butterfly Position potentially has a Butterfly effect.

how things are supposed to work:

2006-09-10T19:59:00.000-04:00

in a group of liberal, diverse coeds, Male Friend makes battered woman joke.
the pit of dyketrophywife's stomach falls a bit and she curtly tells Male Friend that his joke wasn't funny.
ten minutes later, when MF and DTW are alone, the former tells the latter in a very sincere way that he was sorry and that "sometimes people-" and here he corrects himself, "sometimes i don't think."

the patriarchy affects us all, my friend, and sometimes we don't even know it.

in response to a message board for my women's studies class...

2006-09-09T12:47:00.000-04:00

a thought-provoking classmate posted some questions about what feminine, masculine, and gender are on our online discussion forum.

my (token-lesbian gender-eschewing) response?

in reference to the word "feminine," i'd like to point out that powerful women are complimented for being "feminine" and chastised for being "masculine." pearl earrings, high heels, lipstick, skirts...it's acceptable for women to be in positions of power, as long as there are gendered modifiers. notice that woman must qualify their "masculine" power with sex appeal (or risk being butch or bitchy), while men's sex appeal comes from their power. read the statements below. which ones sound commonplace and which ones sound redundant?

she's powerful AND feminine.
he's powerful and masculine.
she's successful AND maternal.
he's successful and paternal.
she's athletic AND sexy.
he's athletic and sexy.

think about the difference between women's tennis players ("feminine," skirts, earrings) and women's softball players...and the stereotypes of each.

my point: men's athleticism, success, and power ARE sexy and masculine (and, indirectly, mark them as good providers/fathers). women's athleticism, success, and power must be modified by a feminine term, almost like saying "yes, she's strong, but don't worry: she's still a woman."

personal anecdote: my mother took my lesbianism in stride. she used to joke (or at least i thought they were jokes) "never shave your head or start wearing flannel." about a year ago, i did cut my hair extremely short. my mother cried and refused to make eye contact with me, because i was "playing into a stereotype" and/or marking myself as a gender transgressor.

i'm not trying to eradicate gender, but rather explore and play with it, much the way writers play with words. what if gender were fluid? what if you could pick a new gender every day? how could you have discrimination based on gender? i could pontificate for hours on the source of gender roles/gender-based discrimination (religion, capitalism, biology, the development of agriculture, et cetera)

what if you could be a metrosexual man monday, a fabulous drag queen tuesday, a boyish girl wednesday, stone butch thursday, a non-op transsexual friday, super-feminine saturday, and completely androgynous sunday? i think this sort of diversity would be beautiful; nobody would HAVE to change genders, but the option and the fluidity would exist. i know this is incredibly utopian (and would probably involve economic change in order to remove the financial inequity between "people who give birth" and "people who don't"). i want to see people of all colors and genders running corporations, walking our streets,and raising children.

post-modernity and beer pong.

2006-08-22T00:20:00.000-04:00

i'm sure most of us of a certain age have experienced this phenomenon in which our (or our peers') entire lives revolve around cyber-socialization. life involves only the following states of being:

1. playing on myspace/facebook when we're supposed to be doing something productive
2. socializing, and therefore talking about facebook/myspace

it's evolved past the level of internet drama ("someone wrote on my boyfriend's wall that they had fun with him last night even though he told me he was going to bed early;" "did you see where weetzie and chuck are in an open relationship on facebook?!""See?! i told you Queenie was gay! it says he's interested in men, AND he's in the designer purses group!") to the point at which many of our social gatherings involve photographing Fun and trying to remember the hilarious things drunk people say so that we can post them as Favorite Quotes.

it almost doesn't matter if you actually are having fun, as long as there are plenty of digital and video files that prove to yourself and others that Your Youth Was Meaningful After All. our social lives have begun to revolve around documenting Good Times, so that our fun is actually creating the illusion of fun. are we masterful artists carrying out technological sleight of hand, or children who've grown up in a time of frighteningly rapid technological change?

when i see my friends working to create greater meaning (or at least memorable hilarity) from beer pong, theme parties, or nights at The Club that are just not fun for one reason or another, i can't help feeling like Nick Carraway at one of Gatsby's dinner parties.

"I was, within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life" (Fitzgerald 40)

Half-hiatus.

2006-08-07T13:39:00.000-04:00

Danger Snatch is moving to NYC, so she won't be around until she gets settled.
the dyke trophy wife promises to keep the good posts coming, like the one below.

another frivolous relationship post from the Dyke Trophy Wife

2006-08-06T18:21:00.000-04:00

Being The Other Woman

…is both exciting and lonely. Dear Abby (who I’ve read religiously since the third grade, despite her not being an actual person) likes to advise that you should NEVER get involved with someone who’s in a relationship, because if Cheater will cheat on Current Partner with Other Woman, what keeps Cheater from cheating on Other Woman if Other Woman becomes Current Partner? Also, she’s very skeptical of Cheater’s ever leaving Current Partner for Other Woman, especially if Cheater is married (Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free...to make a barnyard metaphor). All very well and good, right? Protect your heart and don’t get hurt by Big, Bad Cheater. This is the same advice my very pragmatic XGF [formerly Q(?)XGF] likes to give.

But what about our very fragile feelings and utterly vulnerable libidos? So you don’t set out to fall for someone who’s unavailable; you like to think that anybody who cheats is not worth your time. You’re a good Abby disciple. Maybe you were even Current Partner when One Time Partner became Cheater. In any case, you know how much it, to be crude, fucking sucks. But sometimes shit happens. Sometimes a fantastic, wonderful older woman makes a post-modern pass at you (in other words, friends you via an online networking site; see “Courtship in the postmodern age of MySpace” for unnecessary detail) Say you decide to have lunch, or dinner, or coffee, or a walk around the lake. Say she has an extremely closeted girlfriend. Say you still really, really like Older Woman. Perhaps, even, you start liking her more and more each time you see her. Perhaps the sneaking around is exciting. Maybe one night while Older Woman’s Current Partner is out of town you end up having two hours of high school-esque making out and voila! She’s Cheater, and you’re Other Woman.

she's fantastic, and intimidatingly smart, and pretty, and exciting, and old fashioned. she smells pretty and you could look at her delicate hands for hours. she gives you books and mix cds and you are so, so smitten. In a way, the sneaking about is fun. She says she’s having dinner with a cousin when she’s actually eating thai food with you. You visit on her breaks at work. But then what about when you’re at her house and Closeted Girlfriend’s Family is right across the street and you have to close the blinds and hope they don’t come by for a visit? what about the eventual day your jaded, neurotic self wants to be her girlfriend?

Can you claim ignorance, I-didn’t-know-what-was-happening-until-it-was-too-late? Can you justify your own behavior by saying Older Woman’s ethics are not your problem, and that you shouldn’t have to watch out for Closeted Current Partner’s feelings? Can you forgive Older Woman the ethical breach of infidelity on grounds that are not purely utilitarian? Relationships are fickle things, and sometimes the end is particularly delicate. People do bizarre, incomprehensible things when they’re at the end of their rope with a particular Current Partner. I don’t even know if I believe in monogamy, and sometimes people slip up. Is this a cop-out? Am I being understanding of people’s feelings and libidos, or am I making excuses for Older Woman, XGF, and my own permissiveness?

Are the women’s magazines right? Is this about my own self-esteem and feelings of worthlessness? Maybe if I felt better about myself as a woman I would go after people that were available, who might reject me based on my own faults instead of Pre-existing Relationship Logistics. Or something like that. Blah, blah, blah. Call Dr. Phil and cry me a river.

Those who are particularly idealistic would say no, I wouldn’t want to be with someone who cheated on someone else, even if it was with me. Once a cheater, always a cheater. Maybe I’m a realist, and maybe I’m just a slut. In any case, I’m going to let myself get hurt, over and over if necessary, because the adventure is worth it, and I want to think Older Woman is worth it too.

Nancy Grace in One Word.

2006-08-01T21:41:00.000-04:00

Go.

I leave for one month, and look what happens...

2006-08-01T21:09:00.000-04:00

...more unrest in the Middle East. Big surprise.

After my diligent surfing of BBC's Have Your Say (which should be changed to BBC's Express Your Disdain For America-The EU Edition), I noticed that many more people seem less up in arms about Israel's aggression and more upset about the US's failure to intervene.

People are calling for the US to intervene, when they disliked our invasion of Iraq and dislike what is perceived to be an increasing separatist attitude in UN involvement--one Irish reader said that "Bush is to the UN what Tony Blair is to the EU"--both hindering some sort of global progress. I, for one, didn't agree with the Iraq invasion and I'm still tentative to comment on our involvement in the UN pending further observation, but the world needs to decide if they want us meddling in their business or not.

What can anyone really say that will make us look better in the grand scheme of things? This is another circumstance where we, the American people, become synecdochic of our faulty government (sometimes, when I hear comments about how "bad" we are for not doing shit, I perceive the European complainers to have an expectation of each citizen of the US gather a pitchfork, torch, and/or laser-shooting Sidekick II, board a jet [preferably British Airways--they serve good booze on board], and go over to stop the aggression).
True, innocent people are dying, but I don't see logic (only wishy-washy attitudes) in the castigation of our government for choosing not to hurtle itself headlong into another Middle Eastern dispute, especially when it ostensibly has nothing to do with us. Didn't we take a lot of deserved shit for this before? People just seem to want to blame the US for any aggression, whether it be legitimate because of our preemptive measures, or unfounded because of our failure to act (yet).

First and foremost, I'm all about peace. But when it comes to expectations of the United States as a world power, I'm tired of the blowing hot/cold on each issue (especially from the Brits, whom I love but drive me insane. They are quick to villify Mr. Blair in his support of the Iraq invasion, his adherence to Bush's foreign policies, and his "lack of putting pressure on Bush to do something about the Israel/Hezbollah conflict." Heaven forbid, though, that a smarmy American associates them with that horrible excuse of a leader. How dare one judge all Brits' political beliefs in foreign policy by one man and his administration. The nerve.)

Treat us like the Lex Luthor of the world, or heap a Superman complex upon us. Just pick a side and stop being fickle.

Hiatus

2006-08-01T02:14:00.000-04:00

Sorry, folks. The Muse of Blogdom left us for a bit.
Hopefully, we'll be back to regular posting.

Does voting REALLY matter?

2006-07-11T14:47:00.000-04:00

During the 2004 election, there were smear campaigns galore--the election became less about who would do a good job for the country and more about whose PR team was more efficient. Needless to say, as an American I was less than enthused about the candidates I was being forced to choose between:
A) a jingoistic, excuse-mongering incumbent with a deceptive War Cabinet and a pithy vendetta against Sadaam Hussein,
B) a smarmy, equivocal, rest-on-his-laurels politician whose resemblance to a Bassett Hound no less than foreshadowed his non-charismatic stance on important issues; or
C) The Ruiner of Close Elections, Mr. Nader himself.
(NOTE: I'm disregarding the lower profile candidates, because in bipartisan politics it seems almost ludicrous to regard them as worth having a shot at the Presidency.)

On top of that, stupid celebrities were wasting their breaths trying to get more people to vote. I saw commercials featuring Jennifer Aniston, the epitome of modern feminism, who urged me to take a stand as an unmarried woman and vote. P. Diddy threatened to murder me if I didn't make my way to an election booth, as he has ways of knowing who didn't show up.

One thing that struck me about the celebrities' ploys to appeal to the masses was a common saying, which was slightly altered but bore the same message:

"It doesn't matter who you vote for--just get out there and vote."

I'm sure that seemed innocent enough in all its electorally-minded zeal to most people, but to me (who tries to read subversion in almost everything), it struck some fascinating thought: Does it really matter who I vote for?

I'm convinced that (light conspiracy theory alert) there's something central at the hub of American politics and has been since the formation of such ideologies as neoconservatism (which I hear from many theorists are the centralization). There's so much debate as to what exactly neoconservatism dwells on (James Bryce wrote about the concept in Modern Democracies in 1921, and the notion has been argued about ever since). It's one of those things that extreme leftists are permitted to write about so the status quo takes their ranting for granted, and later the more "rational" (but probably right-affiliated) documentarians provide "solid evidence" refuting the existence of such a breed.

I'm not sure what the breeding grounds for neoconservative ideals are, but the more I learn of the associations and similarities between our presidential candidates, the more I'm convinced that American bipartisan politics is a cleverly-crafted, quasi-ideological demagoguery by whoever's running things around here, neocons or otherwise. It seems we're so caught up with the divisions of Red and Blue (which, if we really look at, are highly superficial) that we ignore the fact that both colors stem from the same spectrum.

If environment plays such a large role in the shaping of people (and it does), can it be possible for men to attend the same (or similar) institutions of higher learning, to have served in the same administrations under varying leadership, to reputedly belong to the same societies (e.g. Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg Group, Freemasons--I'm not going into the theories behind these groups, though), to share similar religious/spiritual beliefs and yet be so radically different in thought? If we really looked at the underpinnings beneath the major candidates we're expected to choose from, would we find that they're really so different after all?

So, does it really matter who we vote for?

Dildo Politics: Lesbians, Feminists, and Sex

2006-07-10T15:28:00.000-04:00

Dildo Politics: Lesbians, Feminism, and Sex

[Disclaimer: in the great tradition of phenomenological feminism, this essay is based entirely upon one woman’s own unique specific opinions/experiences/perspective. By no way is it intended to represent all queer women, many of whom do eschew what herein is referred to as “eroticized dominance” for personal or political reasons. This is by no means intended to disparage their beliefs, but rather to put forth one perspective on lesbian sexual politics.]

“In the conceptual schemes of phallocracies there is no category of woman-identified woman, woman-loving-woman, or woman-centered-woman; that is, there is no such thing as a lesbian. This puts a lesbian in the interesting and particular position of being something that doesn’t exist…[she] can therefore undertake kinds of criticism and description…hitherto unimagined.”
-Sarah Hoagland, “Lesbian Epistemology”

“Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.”
-Ti-Grace Atkinson

A lot of the radical feminist philosophers placed lesbians on the most highly regarded pedestal, That Which Is Outside The Patriarchy. To the contrary, I would perhaps argue that nothing (even Relations Between Women) is so perfect. We all, of course, should be ideal feminists in every facet of our lives- economically, politically, sexually, dietarily- though some of us have a fondness for handcuffs or red meat. But what does “ideal feminism” mean within a relationship? In the bedroom? With the public/private dichotomy so rampant in feminist rhetoric, I personally have a difficult time deciding what’s politically correct (“PC”) in bed or erotica. While lesbians and feminists have kicked some major ass together in revolutions past and present, the old mantra “feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice” makes me cringe like the worst of cheesy clichés. I spent an entire semester of Feminist Theory arguing with seven heterosexual women against the co-opting of lesbian sexuality (whatever that means) for a political purpose. This, like the pornographic exploitation of female bodies for male pleasure, is a form of objectification that I, personally and politically find unacceptable. Thus, this essay is going to discuss lesbian sex and sexual politics, because everyone likes talking about sex, duh.
Lesbians are not simply “woman-identified women”- although we do need more of those in our culture. Women who live their lives with their global sisters in mind are sweeter than sweet in my book. They do any and all of the following: shop at woman-own businesses, take and teach self-defense courses, counsel sexual abuse survivors, teach women’s studies at colleges that drastically need them (ahem, Rollins College), defy patriarchal beauty standards, and serve as role models. We call these women feminists, and we love them dearly. One can be an ass-kicking feminist and still enjoy having sex with men; it’s when you define and create your reality around men that the feminist objection to heterosexual practices comes into play. Not all heterosexual/penetrative sex is rape; I know lots of young heterosexual women who use men for sex the way men are purported to do. I also know lots of lesbians who like to get fucked by other lesbians who are strapping it on, which brings me to lesbian sexuality, which to me is entirely separate from feminism.
What is lesbian sexuality anyways? Many people like to think that lesbians are inherently touchy-feely, egalitarian “you-lick-mine-and-I’ll-lick-yours” lovers, while it is rarely that simple. Eroticized dominance is prominent in the sex lives of many queer folk (familiar with the terms “top” and bottom”?) of various genders. Some lesbians like some or all of the following: dildos, dominance, role playing, erotica, costumes, bondage, porn, and myriad other crazy/kinky/weird fun.
Some lesbians like strap-ons, and I am one of them. I like wearing one. I like stroking it. I like getting fucked with one. I like walking around with a silicone cock hanging between my legs! These words and images might make you wince, especially coming from a lesbian feminist: we should be above using fake phalluses, or talking about sex as fucking, shouldn’t we? Maybe, maybe not. Do I want to be a man and/or have sex with a man? Of course not. Do I feel a masculine sense of power when I wear a strap-on? Since I have no conception of what masculinity feels like, I couldn’t really answer that question. I feel genderfucked. I feel unreal. Yes, I feel powerful, but sex is empowering. Sex, at least as I have experienced it, is about power: giving someone power/permission/access to touch you and kiss you and elicit orgasms from your sweaty body. I’m not down with non-consensual dominance, but the kind of power exchange I’m talking about is mind-blowingly intimate.
Does our sexual obsession with power have anything to do with our cultural fixation on the same? As an anthropologist I would argue that there is, indeed, a correlation. But who’s to say that our erotic fascination with dominant/submissive roles is, without a doubt, bad for us as women and feminists? Certain sexual practices are certainly disturbing to outsiders, but so long as they’re consensual and between adults, it really is not our place to carry out the Great Feminist Judgment. This is one place I would argue that change does not come from within: denying people a sexuality that they find fulfilling by creating more taboos will just make people feel even more guilt about having "weird sex" or "unfeminist sex." Then you have all these guilt-ridden and/or sexually frustrated BDSMers, and how the hell are you going to carry out a revolution? Certainly when American culture looks different sex will too, but let's focus on fixing the things that affect us all- rape, abuse, harassment, the pay gap- rather than the things certain people do in the bedroom…or the bondage club, whatever.

Opinion: I'm a Stupid American.

2006-07-10T13:40:00.000-04:00

This is how I'm supposed to feel about myself in the public forum, aren't I?

I've always felt this sense that "foreigners hate me by default" ever since George W. declared his war on terrorism. It becomes painfully obvious to me every time I read a forum in which a European interjects in an otherwise relatively playful manner of confrontation by pointing out how "stupid" Americans are. I became even more aware of this throughout my support of the FIFA World Cup (no, I'm not a bandwagoneer--I've loved football/soccer for a long time and was prevented from playing it because my parents felt that my time was better spent in other activities). I've heard and read sentiments about the USA's participation in the event. People found a way to make comments about football snide and hurtful--these weren't just cheap shots against opposing teams.
I became upset by words that shouldn't have hurt me.

I was born and raised in this country. I generally do love this place, although at this point we are sorely wanting for improvement in many aspects. We always have and always will. I hate that I can't have pride in my country without being labeled as a "jingoistic Bush-supporter" by someone who doesn't have the remotest idea of how my life works, what my political motivations are, or the fact that I may be human just like them.

I love the world. I love to travel and experience new cultures. But I hate that the world--including many of our own citizens--is now viewing anti-American sentiment as fashionable, when many of them have never even met an American, much less gotten to know one. It frustrates me to no end that I have to feel ashamed of my nationality when I travel abroad for fear of being labeled as a "typical American."

Speaking of which, when is any foreigner going to accurately describe a "typical American"? There are 300 million of us to date. We're mothers, sons, daughters, fathers just like them. We work day-to-day to make a living, just like them. We cry about relationships, just like them. We want to be better people, and we want a better world, just like them. But there are so many of us that it's impossible to pin down one commonality except for the fact that we're American. It's as if they have total disregard for the fact that the nature of this country is fettered with a racial and cultural heterology that can't be erased, and that people of their very culture helped to shape the demographics. Dare I reiterate that there are 300 million of us?

Everyone blames me for electing George W. Bush. Whether I voted for him or not, I am not the sole cause of his being elected into office; regardless, I'm made to feel that way every time a foreigner looks down their noses at me. I used to just believe that this hatred was politically fueled, but I'm terribly mistaken. Even if I rationally discuss my political views (which I can do without slandering my country) and even bring up the general argument that George W.'s approval rate is an all-time low (including the entire presidency), they find ways to attack my way of life otherwise:

1. "You must be a Southern bible thumper." Foreigners are quick to generalize that Americans are hyper-religious; ironically, a few of those nations have sanctioned religions whereas the United States has none (e.g. the Church of England, the Church of Sweden). Further, many foreign countries have people with notably strong beliefs; for example, France and Italy are both supremely Catholic, but we don't attack their abritrary degrees of exercising their faith. So why do Americans (regardless of whether I agree with their fervor or not--I'm not religious but was raised Christian) face skepticism? Because they're American.

2. "You're fat and lazy." I am neither fat nor lazy. I lead a very active life. I'll admit that I did get trapped in fast food for a while while writing a thesis, but my life doesn't revolve around it. Again, because we're Americans and there are more of us, we get pinpointed--and with cheap shots, nonetheless. People I know may not exercise on a daily basis, and they may not be a size double zero, but we're constantly busy. Besides, many other countries have certainly embraced McDonald's wholeheartedly--but of course, our forceful influence is to blame and not their willingness to adopt the Golden Arches.
(NOTE: If I use the argument that all Americans are not fat and lazy, someone tells me, "Americans work too much and are too obsessed with looking good." )

3. "Americans don't care about anyone else but themselves." Well, we've kind of been forced into that corner. We're not allowed to share in the affairs of other countries without facing provocation just because of our nationality, so we have to make do with what we have and keep to ourselves. We've been put into a bad position where, if we did try to help, people would just perceive us as engaging in manhandling (see number four). More people I've talked to than not are either perfectly willing to experience culture outside of the US (and have and do on a regular basis, myself included), or have trepidation about traveling abroad because of how they fear being perceived. We're accused of being bullies, but we're being bullied into keeping to ourselves.

4. "The US is always sticking its nose in other people's business." Our government may be, but Americans on the whole (well, at least the region where I'm from) keep out of other people's business. On a less serious note, we're chastised for "celebrity worship," for wanting to know everything about our famed A-list stars, while people across the pond are allowed to have The Sun and OK!, and Hello! and celebrities like Jordan and Jodie Marsh.

I can't help but think that people worldwide hate us just because it's in fashion and not for any legitimate reason anymore. We're being held accountable for sins that a lot of us didn't sanction, and the world is crying for us to pony up and make amends, but no one wants to give us the chance. We are a flawed country, but each of us, all 300 million of us, are red-blooded humans who deserve as much criticism as foreigners are willing to give themselves. Jesus is attributed with saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In that case, it seems there are a lot of spotless people, and nations, on earth.

So if I have to remain a world's outcast for being tainted amongst a world of perfection, I'll be the Pearl to my country's Hester Prynne and take a scarlet O for the team. To corrupt a saying by Martin Luther, "America is a whore, but she is my mother."

courtship in the postmodern age...

2006-07-06T16:25:00.000-04:00

...of myspace.

we no longer arrange marriages, but we have created adolescent/twentysomething dating rituals based on our hyperconnectivity and constant need for pluralistic communication. life is a constant tussel between the super individualism of the internet (some theorists use the analogy of "the museum of me") and the constant need for approval from a community of friends, peers, and pseudo-experts.

with the magical world of myspace, you don't have to wait to fall in love at first sight, or get drunk at a bar and hope you stumble into The One. these activities have fortunately not fallen by the wayside, but those of us who are picky, or shy, or control freaks can also seek out friends, "networking" (whatever THAT means), or potential lovers by any of the following:
age, gender, sexual orientation, age, height, income level, race, relationship status, interests, music, books, movies, television shows, zip code, school, place of employment, group membership, mutual friends, religion (or in my case, lack thereof), whether they smoke or drink, if they have kids, or preferred body type.

suddenly, you have a host of eligible bastards/new best friends/masturbation fodder at your passive aggressive fingertips. you can be both picky and populist. you can make fun of people's poor spelling and grammar, or their unflatteringly drunk photographs, or the fact that they want to share the results of every quiz they've ever taken with the viewers of their myspace. you can waste an entire evening looking at everyone in the "lesbians of orlando or therebouts" group(for the record, some people think new jersey and washington state are part of this geographic area) and message all the hot ones. (and no, i will not confess to having done this).

the stigma of online dating isn't there, because nearly everybody has one (also: a facebook, at least one email address and AIM account, gmail, text messaging, a livejournal or blog, ad nauseum). we are a generation of young folks attached to each other at the digital hip. when something terribly hilarious or alarmingly wonderful happens to me, sometimes my first reaction is, "with whom can i share this information?" if you like someone, you can show his/her myspace page to countless friends; there is even a convenient feature to forward someone's profile to a friend for approval or strategy formulation. you can be as anonymous as you'd like in stalking someone (not so easy when you're doing the memorized-your-schedule sort of ...erm...admiration) while still getting as many friends involved as your technology age codependence dictates.

say you get a friend request from someone you don't know. this happens rather frequently, and isn't particularly noteworthy. if you think he/she is attractive, or has good taste in music, or is the right sexual orientation, perhaps you accept. a few days later they post a bulletin you think is terribly insightful. you message them. they message you back. a week later, you're enamored of someone whose voice you've never heard. you've got mail, anyone?

now that you know this person on myspace, you have a wealth of information about them at your fingertips. you can search for mutual friends and force them to tell you everything they know about stalkee. you can google their place of employment. you can watch every movie they list as a favorite.
never again must you waste several hours, days, or weeks courting someone, only to realize they worship your least favorite band or most loathed politician. by creating a myspace you can opt to, quite literally, put it all out there.

our generation airs our dirty laundry via so many media. things that were once shameful (abuse, "deviance," family issues) are now the topic of message boards, e-support groups, chat rooms, and online communities. again, you can be simultaneously anonymous (if you so choose) and yet infinitely, pluralistically connected.

so now that your myspace crush knows all about your body image issues and intellectual insecurities, what's next?
coffee.

next in the series: how to meet someone from the internet in person without humiliating yourself!

"I just wanted to touch him like a kitten."

2006-07-06T15:21:00.000-04:00

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin made headlines after he kissed a young child--on the stomach, of all places.

CNN quotes Putin:
"People came up and I began talking to them, among them this little boy. He seemed to me very independent, sure of himself and at the same time defenseless so to speak, an innocent boy and a very nice little boy."

"I tell you honestly, I just wanted to touch him like a kitten and that desire of mine ended in that act."

Is this the Russian equivalent of a neocon having vanilla sex with his wife while imagining a hot buggery session with the lawn boy?

Putin kissed boy 'like a kitten' (CNN International)

"i like going to the dyke march..."

2006-07-02T00:00:00.000-04:00

"whose streets? our streets!"
"just engaged!"
"queer asians against war."
"i would be legal if we could marry."

june 24 i attended (nay, marshalled) the new york city dyke march. it was perhaps one of the most amazing experiences of my life, thus this post is going to lack much of my usual cheekiness and sarcasm.
first of all, the closest i've come to meaningful collective action was attending the halifax citizens against the war's 2003 protests in my hometown, which pretty much consisted of the elderly unitarian universalists (love them!), my then-girlfriend, and me.
this was entirely different. instead of a handful of mismatched daytona hippies, this was a five block long crowd of dykes of all genders, ages, styles [insert cheesy identity metaphor here]. they were righteously pissed off yet empowered, loving life and creating meaningful visibility as they traversed the 42 city blocks with dogs, partners, children, lifelong best friends, and brand-new acquaintances.
karen and i were marshals, which meant that we had to run about and block traffic, holding hands with relative strangers so that the march would go smoothly and nobody would get run over (which almost happened...)

i'm no lesbian separatist or identity politician, but i am more intent than ever on working to create meaningful communities for people, with music, art, ideas. what will queer culture look like when we have equal rights? part of me fears that our culture has arisen from stigmatization, oppression, and inequality, and will cease to be politically charged, fiesty, dynamic, once equality is achieved. will the gay community (by whatever acronym we've adopted at the time) become one big singles club (or rather two: one for the ladies and one for the bois)? i sincerely hope not. i hope queer culture- its symbols, its people, its inside jokes- lives along with political/social/economic equality.
i want to have my (gay) cake and eat it too.

Meet Shirley Phelps-Roper.

2006-07-01T02:00:00.000-04:00

Although Shirley really needs no introduction, I'll start by saying she is a prominent member of Westboro Baptist Church, which proudly sponsors the website godhatesfags.com. By the time this video is done, you'll feel as warm and fuzzy about her as I do.

Shirley on the Big Story, Fox News with Julie Banderas:

Sadly, what Shirley doesn't realize is that people like her are the true doom of America. And I applaud Julie for tearing her a new asshole.

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-06-29T10:21:00.000-04:00

atheism

n.

1. Religion-a disbelief in the existence of any deity. Grounds for eternal damnation (according to Christians).

2. Politics-a disbelief in the existence of any deity. Grounds for losing any major election in the United States. '

3. Sex-a disbelief in the existence of any deity. Grounds for limitations on the standard use of given deity's name during intercourse (usually poses no hindrance).

Don't Believe The Hype.

2006-06-27T22:13:00.000-04:00

Jon Stewart says it best.

Seven Morons in a Warehouse: The latest terror cell to wage "ground war" in America (Infowars)

Cheating Without Sex?

2006-06-23T11:21:00.000-04:00

I recently had a discussion regarding cheating the other day, and the issue of "cheating without sex" cropped up. (For those of you who scratched your head in wonderment like I did--so shoot me--it's essentially falling in love/lust/limerence with someone while in another relationship, yet failing to physically act on it.)

I'm still not so sure I buy the whole "cheating without sex" thing. After all, it's the act of sex that most people get heated about. If a man were to say to his wife, "I'm just having dinner with a female colleague," despite the fact that he may very well have strong affections for her, the wife is not instinctually going to be preoccupied with that aspect of their meetings. She's going to want to know if he's fucking around on her. So in my mind, and in a lot of other people's minds, the actual act(s) of coitus seems to be the deal-breaker.

As far as I'm concerned, the concept of "non-sexual cheating" is a misnomer. It's probably possible to be in love with two people (though I never have, and I'd arguably say that you can't be in the same type of love with two people unless it's platonic at its basic level), but in most cases we just call that "moving on." If you fall for another person and are in a relationship, this probably means that things between you and the former were kaputsky before you chanced upon the third party. Besides, our society extols non-sexual cheating/"moving on" by immortalizing the notion in countless romantic comedies and dramas, and in some cases the couples do actually cheat sexually--we still cheer it on for the sake of real love.

For example, the closest thing America has to a royal couple, if you followed their unfolding liaison, seems to be the product of such a relationship (i.e., they claim there was no sex before the finality of Mr. Smith's divorce) according to their own word. At the same time, rampant fanatics who label themselves "Team Actress From Friends With Good Hair and Fashion Sense Which Are Offset By Undeniably Ferret-Like Eyes" will foam at the mouth that there was sexual cheating involved (I plead Benefit of the Doubt).

So why is it okay for fictional characters, in whom we vicariously invest our hopes and dreams, to "cheat without sex" (and in the case of The Notebook, quite blatantly with sex), but real-life people are condemned for less? Should we make people suffer socially because their needs change and they just happen to come to this realization by meeting someone who awakens such within them but are respectful enough not to cross the sexual threshold?

In my opinion, one should only feel bad if they were not immediately truthful with their significant other. But chemistry is chemistry, and the transpiration of such between two people is not something planned, and I daresay it shouldn't be beaten down with a sense of propriety that mostly has to do with hurt pride and the failure to acknowledge that it's time to move on.

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-06-21T21:23:00.000-04:00

talk dirty

v.

1. Religion--"All of your generous donations go to the church fund, which will help us further the will of God."

2. Sex--"It feels so much better without condoms, though."

3. Politics--"Read my lips--no new taxes."

BLOGGER'S NOTE: Sometimes talking dirty can be artfully combined to incorporate two or more of the three.
e.g. "Your mother sucks cocks in hell, Karras."

The End of Gitmo?

2006-06-21T19:37:00.000-04:00

According to reports, President Bush says that he wants to send most of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to their home countries. Te prison currently holds about 460 inmates--most of whom are being held with no charge.

My viscerals tell me that it's way more than mere coincidence that George W. made these comments while attending a summit in Vienna, especially after the Guantanamo suicides earlier this month have been on the world news radar (though conveniently not noticeably reported in our own news--maybe for a day or so).

Is George just paying lip service to the frowning world leaders like he's done in the past? And what's to be done with those he wants to keep at Gitmo, these so-called "cold-blooded killers...who need to be tried in US courts" and "will kill again if they are let out on the street"? Is there something that disallows extradition to their home countries, or does US now have some sort of superior international jurisdiction to try these "killers"? Please enlighten me.

However, I won't be overly skeptical. I'll pretend that George W. really does want to close Gitmo. But what then?

In the spirit of summer vacation, I propose we turn Guantanamo Bay into the newest Spring Break spot. Kids will be doing keg stands in Camp Iguana, while others will pose for souvenir photos--let one (Insert Generic Cheap Beer here) chick lead you on all fours with a leash while a camouflaged member of the Fun Police pretends to sodomize you, and have your frat-tastic buddies high-fiving in the background!

Or better yet, put on your best beer goggles and hook up with the normally-I-wouldn't-lower-my-standards-but-it's-Spring-Break guy/girl on the very same sheets one of the Saudi prisoners used to put themselves out of infidel misery! You can even get kinky and reenact the hanging yourself with a designated staff member.

I smell a winner.

The US 'Wants to End Guantanamo' (BBC News International)

the gay animal kingdom

2006-06-21T03:01:00.000-04:00

Joan Roughgarden, a transgendered biology professor at Stanford, has created some really interesting theories about homosexuality among animals: primates, sheep, fish, birds...all sorts of sodomizing perverts. as she puts it, "What's coming out [in the past 10-15 years] is to the rest of the species what the Kinsey Report was to humans."

i personally am very appreciative of an evolutionary theory that takes culture into account. homosexuality, she argues, is part of more socially complex creatures, and serves important cultural functions. now, i don't like to see my own complex sexuality from such a functionalist perspective, but if it's the role of straight people to be breeders, i guess i'm ok with my job in the grand scheme of our culture. (i still want to be a mommy, though)

i now open the floor for discussion of the fact that ...at last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

she forgot a title here. :o)

2006-06-18T16:55:00.000-04:00

i spent last weekend in savannah with three best friends. it was generic drunken good times, but upon driving into the city, laura and i (anthropology majors represent!) were amazed by the fact that even the poor part of town is quaint, tidy, and old-fashioned. we knew we were in the "ghetto" by certain indicators (a street called Martin Luther King Blvd, subsidized housing) but was amazed that in the gentrification machine that is the united states, these places were nice, but not hyper-expensive real-estate, ritzy boutiques, or galleries like the rest of the city.
dess lives in a neighborhood that's a mix of old houses (in various states of repair) and new houses designed to look like the older ones. she lives across the street from a jehovah's witness kingdom hall, next door to a handful of twenty-something neonazis (and their dog auschwitz), and the folks behind her are new black panthers. (i couldn't even stand sharing a dorm with a slutty homophobic basketball player!)i feel conflicted about such diversity- a crucible for disaster, perhaps, but if you can live and let live (at least with the people on the same street)-what a great model of america-as-melting pot.

and homeless people on what appeared to be a date.

Overkill?

2006-06-15T16:40:00.000-04:00

I'm not a staunch proponent of the NRA's ideas about gun control (in fact, I'm not quite sure what I believe yet because I've never been in a situation where I had to use a gun for anything serious), but I understand and support to an extent that a citizen may want a firearm or two for matters of personal security (i.e., on their property).

But why does anyone need an assault rifle? If you're only using a gun for protection (i.e., not planning to assault anyone), isn't it overkill to have such a powerful weapon? I understand that some people may be firearm collectors, but I personally don't see the fascination in hoarding deadly weapons.

I ask this because a Certain Trigger-Happy Someone recently acquired a weapon that terrifies me. He has a couple other handguns that I don't mind so much because he keeps them for protection, but I'll be a baby and say I don't like this one because it's big and scary. I have no right to tell him he can't own the firearm, especially when he has his ideological rationale for owning it that I will never be able to unfix from his mind (unless, perhaps, he accidentally shoots me). In addition, he likes to point said weapon at various objects in the house, including Felines One and Two. Although he says that he's being safe, the behavior is unsettling--he seems to be treating it like an everyday toy. I take pointing a loaded firearm at anything very seriously (especially my beloved felines), despite whether or not the safety is on. I think I have a right as a person to not have to feign tolerance (which I can't any longer), just as Trigger Happy has his right to possess the weapon.

So I wrote this entry in Non-Cheeky Mode, in hopes that if Trigger Happy chances to read this he will decide to humor me. Otherwise, the tension will remain.

If you don't want government gun control, learn to keep your guns under your own control.

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-06-15T15:51:00.000-04:00

Monotheist

n.

1. Religion--a person who upholds the doctrine or belief that there is only one supreme being.

2. Politics--a person, esp. Christian, who ignores separation of church and state principles, instead opting to disguise their agenda of promoting monotheistic beliefs into the tenets of neoconservatism.

3. Sex--a person who only calls upon the name of one deity during intercourse. May be "Jesus Christ," "God," or the preferred name of one's lover. The latter is often accompanied with affirmations of said lover's deification (e.g. "Dr. McDreamy, you are a god!")

Ten Ways Dick Cheney Can Kill You

2006-06-15T15:46:00.000-04:00

Without birdshot. (Boing Boing)

"I'll look to like, if looking liking move"*

2006-06-15T00:18:00.000-04:00

Ogling and objectification by males is perfectly acceptable--men of any sexual orientation have no qualms about surveying a man or woman from heel to crown and back again (not even plenty of guys in relationships, although certain ones I know are in denial). It's chalked up to the natural sexual inclination of the male species. (And yes, I've read semiotic readings about traditional male-upon-female objectification until I was blue in the face, so no structuralist lectures).

But us women? We get branded as "oversexed," "campy," "hormonal," or "girlish" when we dare to blatantly look at anyone in a strictly sexual fashion, let alone playfully (or drunkenly) catcall people who float our boats or openly discuss our sexual approval of men/women we find attractive (kat von d). Back in the day, unless I was strictly in the company of my female friends, I was reduced to sneaking subtle peeks at guys I found attractive--I was cheated out of drinking in the whole picture because my nana or my mother or my male friends would think of me as one of those four qualifiers.

We're humans who have natural desires, and monogamy dictates (depending on the couple's personal agreement) that we respect whatever physical agreement we make with the other by default (i.e., because of the emotional bond). But that doesn't dictate that our intrinsic physical attraction (doctor mcdreamy). should be squelched and focused on one other person. Sure, during those moments of limerence it seems like we can only make goo-goo eyes at one person (scarlett), but I've respect the fact that a significant other might sneak a peek at someone they find attractive as long as they're not assholes. Furthermore, they will likely get hit on while I'm not around by women they may find attractive; I won't freak out. Jane Doe may love her hubby to death, but it doesn't mean that she won't be fascinated by the blinding aura of David Beckham's thighs.

So I say that if males don't want to listen to the cries of "wrongful objectification," then toss the double standards out the window. Don't brand us as nymphos because we happen to enjoy the aesthetic value (freddie ljungberg) of well-kept men (or women).

With that, I've interspersed some of my favorite guys and gals throughout this blog. And don't be afraid to ogle.

*Ten points if you know without Google.

the Pill.

2006-06-13T11:14:00.000-04:00

So yesterday I made a happy visit to the friendly neighborhood gynecologist. I experienced the general discomfort associated with poking and prodding. Nothing too serious.

For a few months, I've been thinking about re-committing myself to oral contraceptives. I figured now was as good a time as any to talk to my doctor about new options, since it's been a while.

I explained to my doctor my reasons for giving up birth control--my main purpose was in curbing cramps and regulating my period (endometriosis runs in my family), but neither of those seemed to be gravely affected by the hormones. I told her I was interested in narrowing down the number of periods I had a year, and she had the perfect solution--a pill that, when your body adjusts, only gives you four periods a year. Score. I happily accepted the prescription.

Normally, my insurance pays about 85-90% of my birth control because my use of it is classified under "hormone therapy"-- I never had a problem forking out no more than $15 a month for my pills. But what I didn't realize is that this particular package of contraceptives is not covered by any insurance company in the United States--it's classified as a "luxury birth control." So I ended up forking over more money than I care to think about because my doctor says the benefits would be worth the trouble. I learned that if I just wanted to be on the Pill so as not to get pregnant, then I'd have to pay about 80% of the total myself on any birth control I was prescribed.

I find it funny that insurance companies consider the use of oral contraceptives as their intended purpose, i.e., to prevent pregnancy, a "luxury behavior." For many women, the Pill is just as important in this respect as condoms are for a lot of males; granted, condoms prevent transmission of STDs, but the Pill allows an intimacy between two hetero, fairly monogamous partners (i.e. glove-free) that they have a right to without having to worry about the notion of potential procreation every time they have sex.

I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but this smells like a ploy to discourage my right to decide how my body works and what benefits I want from sexuality.

one of the drawbacks of higher education....

2006-06-12T14:46:00.000-04:00

is that you can't sit through a movie without overanalyzing it. thus i'm going to present the collegiate movie reviews of the past three films i've seen:

the omenwas really about the nature/nurture debate and our culture's obsession with genetic causation. damien is young son of an embassador and his wife, but the reason he's so weird is (of course) the fact that his real mother is a jackal (as if that makes sense) and he just has poor genetic makeup. rich white people never raise dysfunctional children, and when they do it's completely out of the parents' control.

i saw X3 as a metaphor for curing homosexuality. if science could find a way to fix the hypothetical "gay gene" (see above), would it be ethical to give people the choice to "cure" themselves of homosexuality (or other such mutations)? sometimes choices (american culture loves choices after all) are not always good: the fact that some mutants could and did choose to take the cure had implications for all mutants in society. does this then mean that pure scientific inquiry must be checked in the name of the public good?

i'm not going to lie: my main reason for seeing just my luck was a certain leading lady. the main thing i noticed of this film was the dearth of non-white characters. in fact, the few black characters were gross stereotypes: the black doorman at lohan's ritzy apartment, the obese fur-coat clad record industry exec (and his black bodyguards), and the oversexed black girl who does everything short of rub her poonani on the leading man. oh yeah, and maybe an asian hipster kid too. not to mention the entire movie (caution spoiler ahead basically leads up to the moment when they realize that luck isn't important, so long as you have love and can make the individual choice to have a good life no matter how badly the cards are stacked against you (ie, redemption through romantic love PLUS meritocracy)

in short, i need to either stop thinking, or stop going to see mainstream movies. [my parents, sick of my "i don't support that" diatribes, are certainly voting for the former.]

Gems of Enlightenment

2006-06-07T23:43:00.000-04:00

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry

I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."--George H.W. Bush

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."--Pat Robertson

"Satan uses homosexuals as pawns. They're in, as you know, key positions in the media, they're in the White House, they're in everything, they're in Hollywood now. Then, unfortunately, after he uses them, he infects them with AIDS and then they die." --Anthony Falzarano

"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."--Pat Robertson

SOURCES via Alarming Religious Right quotes and Quotes from the Religious Right

Are you there, God?

2006-06-06T18:12:00.000-04:00

I can only imagine that God was in a conference on this one.

A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

The incident, Sunday evening when the zoo was packed with visitors, was the first of its kind at the attraction. Lions and tigers are kept in an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks.

Point: atheists.

Lioness in zoo kills man who invokes God (Reuters)

If you can't say anything nice...

2006-06-06T15:27:00.000-04:00

...then don't say anything at all.
So I won't say anything about Ann Coulter's interview with Matt Lauer. But I think she could do well to follow this advice. While the arguments she presents may be valid (not gonna lie, I have agreed with her in the past), Ann Coulter's methods of promotion have gone beyond resembling anything that can be called legitimate.

Take a gander at this video.

Decide for yourself whether she's right about 9/11 widows--I don't dictate your politics. Whatever your decision, though, you can't deny the fact that she looks like a rabid horse waiting to be put out to pasture. Now that's a doctrine of infallibility. Oops, there I go saying mean things...fuck it. Ann Coulter is psycho.

An organization dedicated to exposing the truth about the former drag queen known as Ann Coulter (Strap-On Veterans for Truth via Hoolinet)

Two wrongs don't give us rights.

2006-06-05T17:27:00.000-04:00

Dan Savage is one of my favorite sex columnists. He doesn't pretend to know everything about sex; instead, he just calls it like he sees it with a sensibility that appeals to all without abandoning his own sexuality.

I've been following Savage Love for awhile, and I just wanted to direct attention to Savage's thoughts on Straight Rights (scroll down to the updates when you click the links):

"STRAIGHT RIGHTS UPDATE: I've been running around with my hair on fire trying to convince my straight readers that religious conservatives don't just hate homos. Their attacks on gay people, relationships, parents, and sex get all the press, but the American Taliban has an anti-straight-rights agenda too...."(read more)

"STRAIGHT-RIGHTS UPDATE: After tossing nearly half of last week's column away on a straight-rights update, it was my intention to give it a rest. In fact, every time I write one of these, I think, "This is the last one. Banning abortion, evicting unmarried straight couples and their children, moving to ban birth control—things can't get any worse, can they?

"Oh, but they can....": (read more)

Dan Savage brings up excellent points no matter what you think of his opinions. Many people feel unconcerned with the current administration's efforts to thwart gay rights, but it's only a matter of time before they start controlling hetero rights, too.

We all want to be equal. And it looks like if everyone's rights are deprived, we will be.

Oh, and take a gander at Dan's whole column. It's awesome. (Savage Love)

How to Host a Proper Orgy, Part Two

2006-06-05T16:51:00.000-04:00

So: inviting people to your orgy. Easier said than done. Sometimes you'll find that people you figure to be down for an orgy freak out on you when you suggest the idea, while the lady who lurks in Archives secretly has swinger parties at her apartment every week.

Try to figure out how the personalities of the invited guests will mesh, but don't try to think too much about the relationships between the people you're asking--Don't the bookworm and the Satanist both like the pink-haired pixie girl?--you are the host, not the love doctor. People will work these complications out on their own, and if they don't it's not your fault; after all, you're not forcing them to become entangled in a mass of sweaty bodies. Just make a list of people you know would get along in a non-threatening situation--after all, it's assumed that the orgy is not being thrown for the purpose of creating true love connections.

Alcohol and jokes: these can be mutually exclusive to your strategy, but they can also create a wonderful mix for finding out who's (as my favorite sex columnist Dan Savage calls it) GGG--"Good, Giving and Game."

Sometimes your true interest can be disguised as a caustic quip or a playful insult, which is less awkward then asking, "So, I'd like you to join my orgy." But sometimes the direct approach is best, especially if done in a sincerely flirtatious (is that an oxymoron?) manner. Liquid courage helps; just be sure that you're not overly courageous to the point of slurring. A little buzz does wonders for my flapping gums, and it can work for yours (i.e., if you're one of those people, like me, who becomes exponentially talkative to the point of revealing dangerous info). No immediate embarrassment on your part, and if the embarrasment catches up with your sober persona, you can play up just how inebriated you were and blame it on the Beefeater.

Of course, my personal favorite is sending out cute invitations. People will find it a funny joke, but trust me--everyone who gets an invite will secretly wonder if you're not kidding. You can then pretend it's a joke, but segue into how you would really have an orgy if everyone was GGG. And this, my friends, is the hook.

Next: How to set up your digs so no one pokes out an eye.

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-06-05T16:10:00.000-04:00

terrorism

n.

1. Politics--according to the FBI, "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

2. Religion--liturgies on hellfire.

3. Sex--see DONKEY PUNCH; HOUDINI

the medical/capitalist/cosmetic complex

2006-06-03T11:59:00.000-04:00

is anybody else mildly perturbed at our cultural inability to separate healing, vanity, and making a profit?
i recently went to speak to an oral surgeon about the imminent removal of my wisdom teeth. i was expecting a dentist's office-type setting, but no. rather, the walls were decorated with lurid "before" and "after" images of various cosmetic procedures, people who are clearly happier (and live under more flattering light, too, it seems) after have a cheek lift/nose job/injection/liposuctioning of the face. there was also a fishtank.

the person who generally calls your name at such appointments and leads you to an examining room is a nurse/hygenist-type person (almost always female, duh). at the "oral and facial surgeon" (a euphemism for plastic surgery, apparently) this person has gigantic fake breasts, overwhelmingly fake teeth, and a t-shirt emblazoned with the word BOTOX in silver rhinestones.

should i be afraid of waking up from surgery with my round cheek thinned or my skin raw from a surprise microdermabrasion? i'm trying really hard to appreciate the slightly irregular package i've been given, but it's hard when there are all these "choices" (it's all about choices!) of ways to improve ourselves in order to "feel better about ourselves." change comes within, methinks, when it comes to liking yourself.

what are the implications of allowing the people who treat our bodies to help us decide what is aesthetically pleasing and then surgically constructing "better" body parts? these days dermatologists sell makeup, dentists bleach/file/cap teeth, and gynecologists/plastic surgeons council women on vaginal rejuvenation/hymen reconstruction. where do we draw the line between health and vanity? when does a self-esteem issue become a medical one? hypertrophy, for example, is the medical condition of having small breasts. people are making a profit not just from (over)prescribing the medicines now advertised on television (snake oil, anyone?), but from "fixing" the detrimental effects of our youth/beauty/image-obsessed culture.

it is within issues like this that i find the biggest conflicts between lesbianism and feminism. i'm not lying when i say i'm attracted to all sorts of women, but sometimes it is the ones deemed most attractive by our culture's standards that really do it for me. how much of my desire for women is shaped by the way our media portrays women and teaches men to desire women?

how much am i playing into the patriarchy when i get my panties in a twist over skinny models or movie stars, the people "we" say are the prettiest? what would desire look like without advertising, without this homogenous image-obsession, without doctors doling out botox and giving everyone the same smile, the same nose?

There is such a thing...

2006-05-30T23:27:00.000-04:00

...as being TOO Progressive.
Does this even count as progressive, or just plain apeshit?

Pedophiles to launch political party (yahoo.com)

Discuss.

The Lord's Gym?

2006-05-30T16:23:00.000-04:00

Let's think about this: if Jesus wanted to give you the ability to perform any feat, what would you choose?

Pat Robertson went for the ~~blatantly false~~ ~~ludicrous~~ (oh hell, let's just call it what it is) twatted claim that he can legpress a short ton (i.e., 2,000 pounds).

Me? I would have asked for the ability to fly, or walk on water. I guess, though, that Jesus tends to reciprocate according to what he gets. And what he gets from Pat Robertson (as do the rest of us) is a short ton of bullshit.

Robertson's 2,000-pound lift raises eyebrows (msnbc.com)
Pat Robertson's Official Site (patrobertson.com)
The Big Scary List of Pat Robertson quotations (positiveatheism.org)

extremism is invigorating part 2

2006-05-26T02:21:00.000-04:00

if you're bored and/or feel like being irate, check out my new favorite websites!

" [Our mission is] to track, synthesize and expose the secret, social and political corruption of America's powerful, government financed Lesbian Mafia...Would you feel comfortable knowing that a lesbian physician is examining your body and all the while fantasizing a sex orgy with your body. Or, even worse, would you feel comfortable allowing a lesbian physician to examine the privates of your children."

and...

"To a woman, being in a Girls Gone Wild video is just as laudable as serving in a highly respected public office. They stack up eyeballs like empty pie plates at a NOW convention."

NYC's Homeless Problem.

2006-05-25T22:47:00.000-04:00

"[Some] people living on the streets have serious problems. These problems include substance abuse, mental illness and serious violent criminality. All of those issues need to be addressed. Letting people lie there so that their problems get worse is not the answer. It’s not compassionate, and it’s not humane. We need to reach out to these people and help them address their problems. That’s what a compassionate society does."
--Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Source: State of City Address, New York City Jan 13, 2000

Seen last night in Madison Square Park, Midtown, 11:30 pm (don't ask why I was lurking around the Park at that time):
Two city workers--one obviously keeping a lookout, the other with his back turned, the visible glow of a lighter flame on his face, and the unmistakable scent of a certain freebase substance. Nearby, a homeless man on a bench turns and looks at them, shaking his head in disdain and mumbling something to the effect of, "Damn crackies."

Oh, you crazy Gandalf.

2006-05-23T14:03:00.000-04:00

I and a male companion took in The Da Vinci Code film last week.
Although I won't comment in depth on the film/book (which were both slightly more than mediocre, at best, but nonethless entertaining--the book tenfold more so than the film), I was tickled by the controversial comments by Sir Ian McKellen (who plays Sir Leigh Teabing) surrounding the controversy. Read a couple of his quotes, then imaging the furor of Fundamentalists, who already hate the film, towards the comments of a gay actor who is also a probable agnostic or atheist. It's quite enough to be entertained.

In an interview on the Today show (See the video below):
MATT LAUER: There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?

SIR IAN MCKELLEN: Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it.

In an interview at the 59th Cannes Film Festival:
MCKELLEN: When I read the book I believed it entirely. When I put the book down I thought what a load of potential codswallop. But I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I know that the Catholic Church has problems with gay people. I thought that would be absolute proof Jesus was not gay.

Brilliant.

Only in a Red State.

2006-05-23T13:51:00.000-04:00

Or possibly in a Blue State, if mental patients are allowed to drive cars:

(from the archives of Danger Snatch's driving photos.)

This is sending me a few messages:
1) I couldn't be too sure, but I got a feeling this person was telling me that Jesus is, in fact, real and happens to love me (which I can't help but interpret as poorly misguided infatuation, because Jesus and I haven't even been on a first date--he only ever sends me messages through his friends, which is so sixth grade);
2) Am I wrong in interpreting a gay pride agenda here as well, or is the rainbow lettering just used to emphasize the "colorfulness" (i.e., insanity) of the message? I have nothing against gay Christians, but I'm pretty sure that (if the fundamentalists are right, and they are so DON'T even think about questioning their views on the Bible which are RIGHT and EXACT because they ~~wrote it~~ ~~heavily edited it~~ have it on good authority), Jesus is not really into the non-hetero thing.

extremism is so invigorating.

2006-05-22T17:03:00.000-04:00

the human rights campaign, good folks that they are, have put together a nice little video about the extremists who support the federal marriage amendment. i strongly suggest you watch it and sign their online petitions (internet activism does mean something, after all) click the link below, and never forget to stay informed about what's going on around you.
HRC video of the week

The return of sex.

2006-05-22T00:28:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest moments of stress relief might possibly be the advent of a sexual reawakening (that is, assuming one hs previously been active in riding the train to Shagland). When one realizes it's time to get back on the pine pony, gone are the cement shoes that unknowlingly sent one down to the bottom of the river Deprivation.

Sometimes one slips into one of those ruts where sexual desire seems like it has no relevance amongst the millions of things one must accomplish, the constant worry one faces at things in one's life that need to be tended to, the nagging memory in the back of one's mind of a Polish nun who smacked one's hand with a ruler because one asked about the "dirty deed."

But when the dust settles, and one finally has time to listen to that slight restless beast that dances at the bottom of the stomach's pit, one realizes that all the asking for is to be, well, fucked.

And there's nothing better than realizing that all one really needed was a good shag--and I'm not talking one of those cheap, desperate sessions where one ends up feeling like one just drank a fifth of vodka only to find it was 90% water--a shag in which all the proper precautions were taken so as to relieve the most preventable issues, where one is allowed to relax and slip into the sensation that can only be properly described by a biting of the lower lip and an involuntary guttural release of air from the vibrating larynx.

Now, the choice to adhere from sex could probably be fulfilling in itself; however, when one has opted for a safe-as-can-be, healthy sex drive and doesn't realize that sex is what was missing from the equation, the realization and conssequential remedy is nothing less than sublime.

Two Sides of the Coin.

2006-05-19T14:48:00.000-04:00

Immigration and naturalization laws are a hot button issue in this country right now, and a week ago I was proud to say that I didn't care much about this problem and wanted to leave it to the avids to sort out. However, after hearing an earnest perspective on the matter from a dear friend (who happens to be a Latino permanent resident), I feel compelled to choose sides as both a sympathizer and as an American citizen.

When I say "choose sides," I don't mean in the readical sense--I'm not saying that the floodgates should be opened and that immigrants should be allowed to inundate our economy. Nor am I saying that we should keep a terribly tight rein on our borders, send six thousand National Guard to surveil or to start deporting people left and right. But I feel that I have to take at least a conditional stand so that I don't remain apathetic to issues that will become a major part of my life.

Firstly, I say that as US citizens, it's easy for us to forget that our lineage heralds from immigrants who came (or were brought) to this country and were eventually extended the semblance of opportunity in a land where "the streets are paved with gold." Everyone was searching for something in a country that became a land of opportunity. Hell, we are the land of opportunity because anyone theoretically could have come to America and become a new person, turn a new leaf (as much as Social Darwinism and one's own personal drive would allow).

At the same time, I know a lot of us who are "native Americans" can be quite selfish about out heritage--an American life is what we know, despite our variance in ancestry, and some feel threatened by the fact that we're allowing foreign people to come in and purportedly disrespect the slow but steady right to American nationality we've built. This is because, despite being Americans, we're still tessellated--people like to say this country is a melting pot, which implies an amalgamation of many cultures. But we're more of a tiled mosaic--each ostensibly adds to the bigger picture of American culture, but there is still a crack, a linear separation that distinguishes each tile from another.

But America is still America, which means everyone who lives here and who comes here have to accept two portions of each side: we are America because we are diverse, whether we like that or not. We are unique in that we have so many cultural mosaic tiles, but everyone is allowed to affix "-American" to their ancestry and proudly do so.

My main issue is with people who take this for granted. Citizenship to any country is a privilege, not a right. Naturalized citizens who were not born in any given country worked damn hard to gain status in their country, and as a result their children/grandchildren get to enjoy the privileges of said citizenship. So I applaud people who come to this country for a better life and realize that citizenship is not to be taken lightly, nor are its perks.

But not everyone feels they have this luxury, and not everyone regards the fact that our forefathers worked extremely hard to be a part of this country so that we could sit pretty with all the American amenities. I feel for people who need to take refuge from poverty in their own countries; at the same time, I don't feel it fair when people only want to take advantage of American rights without wanting to put the same effort into becoming citizens.

At the same time, though, I think it's terribly unpatriotic (and oh, how I hate how that word has been sullied in the past few years, but I will use it anyway) of Americans who complain about how illegal immigrants are "taking jobs from Americans." This is not true, because there are actually underhanded, cheap-ass companies who provide these positions fully knowing that Americans won't take them. They're exploiting immigrants who want to make an honest effort to settle in this country as well as abetting those who simply want to leech off our economy without repercussion. I say it's up to us to not allow this to happen: hold these businesses accountable for human rights violations for the sake of turning out extra profit.

And I don't see a big problem with people who are not quite willing to relinquish their natural citizenship to another country to be allowed to live and work on a guest basis as long as they are provided with legitimate jobs and not allowed to take advantage of the privilege (think of a houseguest who says they'll stay for a week but ends up living on your couch for a month, when you promised another friend they could stay during that time).

I also don't see a problem with allowing bilingual signs in an area that is densely populated by ethnic groups who speak a certain language, as long as this population is not taking advantage of their stay in this country. If I spoke English and grew up in a Cantonese household in Chinatown, I'd think it great to have my culture reflected in my neightborhood. But those who want to stay and work in this country also need to give of themselves by learning conversational English at the least. For instance, if I went over to France, no one would give me the time of day if I attempted to speak in English all the time and expected to be catered to in English. On the other side, I think those of us Americans who speak English well need to be more patient with those who may not be quite as fluent yet, but are trying to communicate with us. I'd feel discouraged if people constantly said to me, "Go learn to speak English"--why would I want to assimilate to such an unforgiving culture? (This is one reason why I am staying away from France; despite one's best efforts, the French are a prideful people and don't take kindly to anyone butchering their native tongue).

As an American citizen, I have my own rights I want to protect. When people become defensive, it's hard for them to sound compassionate and sensitive. But I really do feel that America needs growth everyday. We need to maintain, despite our soiled image, the promise that anyone can come here, work hard, and be accepted as an American.

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-05-18T16:43:00.000-04:00

blow-back
n.

1. Politics: the possibility that American-made weapons will be turned against American troops in time of warfare.

2. Religion: the staunch discouragement against contraceptives leads to the uncalculated boom in increasingly gullible generations of parishioners.

3. Sex: Immediatly after oral sex, trapping one's receiving partner in a heavy makeout session so as to transfer the appropriate body fluids. Often used as a retaliatory method for general unappreciativeness/constant lack of reciprocity, as most people seem to have a fear of their own body fluids (but, oddly enough, not those of strangers).

Case study: the MILF

2006-05-17T18:51:00.000-04:00

[in case you didn't know, MILF is one of those delightful bits of youth culture stemming from the American Pie film series; it stands for "Mom I'd Like to Fuck"]

So last night I went to an event at my sister's middle school, and amidst all the middle aged frumpery, i noticed a few MILFs. a MILF, for the record, has had multiple plastic surgery procedures (most likely breasts and something to the face; loves botox) and has super white teeth. her husband is usually mediocre looking, often a doctor or lawyer, but a relatively average suburban dad. you know she drives an Excursion or Navigator, and often a trendy breed of dog pokes its head out of the backseat (dalmation; husky) or her coach bag (chihuahua) she probably drops a wad of cash each week on various "services": under the table babysitters, housekeepers, and yard men. her children are excessively groomed, but one of them is almost certainly chubby (a shame to her, of course)

as a feminist babysitter, i have noticed a trend among stay-at-home mothers my mom's age and slightly younger. these upper/upper-middle class women are more likely college educated, but have "made the choice" to be homemakers, or at least that's what they tell themselves and others. secretly, though, they feel themselves above the dirty work of parenting (changing diapers, carpool, vomit clean-up)- jobs that are foisted upon either teenage babysitters or immigrant nannies. they also feel the need to remind themselves and others that they do, indeed, have intellect underneath their pristine designer outfits (which the children must never smudge!) by doing charity work, book clubs, and countless volunteer hours at the children's schools. they themselves engage in extracurricular activities (while someone else shuffles their children off to their own structured after school fun) to remind themselves that they are better than women who either
a. didn't go to college and stay with the children because they don't have marketable skills
b. work out of economic necessity

i call this the millenial feminine mystique, and i find it frustrating. these are the women who took advantage of the choices feminism gave them, and things still aren't working out. the myth of being able to have it all? i don't know. child-rearing is noble, but i'm uncomfortable being linked with the super-christians who espouse the same rhetoric.
i need to get off my high horse of PC egalitarian queer feminism, because i'm not married with children, but some day i hope to be, but in my own weird way, of course.
ps- sorry for the cheesy cop-out.

Dirty advice for the week of 11 May 2006

2006-05-11T02:13:00.000-04:00

I have a difficult time dealing with religion and dating. I often find men that I am attracted to, but when I find out they aren't Christian like me, I have a hard time buying into a relationship. Or if they are Christian, they "don't believe in organized religion"--I, on the other hand, like to go to church to learn not to show off my religion and would really like to be able to go with a significant other.

At this point, I do have interest in someone in particular, and he seems to reciprocate but I don't know if anything will come of it because I'm hitting the "organized religion" wall. What should I do?

Darling,
Everyone has certain qualities they seek in a mate, and by no means am I telling you to change your standards. I, for one, could never date someone with a radically different value system (ie, a republican). I must say, however, that “not showing off your religion” and dragging your partner to church are somewhat incompatible. While I understand you want to share your faith with the man in your life, I would ask you to consider if that’s really synonymous with having him stand next you during a sermon he’s not enjoying. If you can’t reconcile other people’s religious beliefs (as is your prerogative), try finding a Christian singles group, or date within the church. Just stay away from the altar boys. Best of luck, dear.
-DTW

So I just ended an engagement with the guy I've been dating since 7th grade. I know that it's time to play the field, and I almost had a chance to sleep with one of my best friends--a great person, but not my type (and by not my type I mean pretty ugly). For future reference, is it ethically acceptable to sleep with someone to whom you find little or no attraction? Will I feel disgusted with myself in the morning?

Dear Reader,
Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with this as long as you make perfectly clear that you are not leading the other person on in any way.

However, this is easier said than done. I can only think of pity as a good reason in which you could have sex with Unattractive Friend and not denote any detectable attachment--even in this case, you have to imply that you are doing this because of said reason and they have to be okay with it.

In any other case, you're telling Unattractive Friend in a way that you're having sex with them because you find them attractive on some level. Which would be rather contradictory if you are not, in fact, attracted to them and will lead to messiness, especially if there is a strong likelihood that you will ever see this person again.

So you may want to explore your willingness to sleep with him--is there some primal, deep-seated attraction to him that your subconscious is hiding from you? Do you feel so compelled to play the field now that you're single that you feel pressured to start sleeping with people and you're settling for someone whom you don't have to work for? Did you have too much alcohol, which is clouding your judgment?

In short: don't sleep with your best friend whom you find unattractive, unless you later discover some way in which you are attracted to them. Be sure that alcohol and desperation don't become part of this decision if it becomes an eventuality. However, if you never intend to have contact with said person again and they don't become instantly enamored with you, by all means if your conscience allows it.

DS.

I have a wonderful boyfriend, and I believe he loves me very much. However, he is very secretive about parts of his life.

We've been dating since last year. He has a key to my house and is free to come and go as he pleases. But I have never been to his home--I don't even know where he lives. Whenever he talks on his phone, he makes sure I cannot listen in by going outside. He constantly talks about making a life together, and has even called me his wife. He has introduced me to his co-workers as his better half. But this weekend, he went on a sudden buisness trip overseas--he told me not to be alarmed if I didn't hear from him before he got home. Since then, I'm lucky if I get to see him once a week. Should I be concerned?

This is quite simple:
either your boyfriend is a CIA/Interpol operative, or there's another relationship in the mix.
Be upfront about your concerns, delineate them, and don't take "no" or a convenient escape route for an answer. If that doesn't work, do some surreptitous digging. You're partially entitled as long as you don't take it into stalker mode. Hire a private eye if you need to--after all, you're contemplating growing old with this guy.
In either case, if one of my deductions is true (and I'm fairly certain it is), get rid of him--you probably don't want a person who can't share such a huge part of his life with you.

DS.

I'm a young guy, I'm in love with my boyfriend, and I love having sex. Lately, my boyfriend would rather masturbate than have sex. I'm feeling sexually frustrated--should I be worried?

Dear queer,
He’s straight. There is no other conceivable reason why a young gay male wouldn’t want to engage in anal sex.
I’m obviously being facetious. Any number of issues could have caused his change in behavior- he may be grappling with control issues or an STD or fear of commitment (you guys aren’t lesbians, after all!) without being confrontational, ask him why he’s changed his sexual behavior, and then be receptive to his answers. There are ways to be intimate without having sex, after all, and maybe that’s what he needs right now…sometimes a period of consensual celibacy can jump-start an erotic relationship. just remember
a. there’s nothing wrong with you masturbating too and
b. always use condoms
best of luck, darling!
-DTW

'you might get a lethal injection, 'cause we take metaphors that far' (ani)

2006-05-10T21:54:00.000-04:00

my parents are having my dog chance put to sleep tomorrow.
i know in my heart of hearts that this is the right decision- he's a yellow lab, thirteen and a half years old. he can barely walk, even to do his favorite things, like wandering around the yard or wrestling with his horny companion, the five year old chester (before you get any weird ideas, he's a dog too)
in any case, it's extremely upsetting. our vet makes house calls, so they're going to do it at home. while i know this is more comfortable for chance, the fact that my dog is essentially being killed in our house kind of freaks me out.

anyway, i was talking to one of my friends about this last night, and he made the interesting point that putting pets to sleep once it's "for the animal's own good" is pretty uncontroversial, while euthanasia for humans, even when the terminally ill individual had directly specified which actions should be taken under certain medical circumstances, causes a giant hoopla. terri schiavo, anyone? i am of course talking about the christian right.

in any case, this means letting a dog have a dignified death is more acceptable than allowing a human to have one, even though the dog cannot say "i'm tired of being in pain and shitting on the floor." as a non-religious person, i have a vague sense that this has to do with the "sanctity of life" argument and whatever exactly we as a culture have decided a soul is: a human has some inherent thing that needs to be protected until god comes and takes it, while a dog is just a set of mechanisms.

so we've deducted that the life of a terminally ill person is sacred, but not the life of a terminally ill (or just poorly aging) pet. also the life of a fetus is sacred- that one's a no-brainer. once all these sacred fetuses turn into children (many of them living in poverty) their education and well-being is not sacred, of course, or all schools would be properly funded, and the welfare and foster care systems would actually take care of them. oh wait, "the" family is sacred too, because non-heterosexuals can't parent all these formerly sacred fetuses/now profane children. also, life is not sacred for anyone on death row (many of whom are mentally ill or handicapped, and have not had fair trials) or the people in any of the countries we feel like invading.

so exactly who has a soul? whose life is sacred?

in any case, think of me tomorrow at 5:30 EST, because that's when the vet is coming.

because we need to save the cute/pretty creatures, but heaven forbid we conserve fossil fuel.

2006-05-10T17:02:00.000-04:00

seen at lake highland prep school:

a lincoln navigator with a "save the wild dolphins" license plate.

adventures in yuppiehood and masochism

2006-05-09T13:12:00.000-04:00

so yesterday was my first day back in gaytona, so i did what any young dyke would do upon returning home:
i went to yoga with my mother.
specifically, it was the sort of yoga with lots of sports-bra clad soccer moms in a heated room. the studio was in one of those baby shopping centers that blanket central florida. i entered feeling very cynical about the trendy-new-age music and jewelery (??) that was for sale at the desk where you rent mats; the decor consisted mainly of some artful looking pseudo-driftwood propped in the corners of the yoga studio.

i have always been sort of anti-yoga. celebrity fitness trends have never really appealed to me (but then, exercise never has been my cup of tea at all). especially when those particular creatures afflicted with the millenial feminine mystique
feel the need to get centered for their busy day of ignoring their children and underpaying their babysitters. [aside: an entry about this phenomenon is forthcoming, fear not. ]

also, i had a feeling that the great yoga masters don't make a point of telling their pupils that they burned "six to eight hundred calories" or joke that they're serving ice cream and cookies after the session. "Stretch like you're wearing a sexy pair of high heels!" probably never passes the lips of the eastern yoginis.
but then i saw the positives: a plump middle-aged woman (whose breasts i had accidentally seen in the locker room when she was extolling the virtues of her sam's club shorts) felt good enough about her body to wear a sports bra in front of people, an older man telling the lady next to him how much weight he's lost and how healthy he now feels.

i've had a migraine for the last 24 hours, and i'm terribly sore. needless to say, i'm going back.

Desensitization at its worst.

2006-05-07T13:14:00.000-04:00

I've noticed every morning, when I check any given news source, that I go straight for the big news headlines. I'm preoccupied with the seemingly pointless game of nuclear chess between the Big Five and Iran; I sometimes browse the perpetual pictorials of Katrina's Aftermath; I even read up on crazy Scientologist celebrities.

Today, this headline is off to the side:
"Bombs Rock Baghdad, Karbala; 17 Killed" (msnbc.com)

I paid no attention to it whatsoever, until I realized that I paid attention to it whatsoever.

How ironic that our political liberation of a Middle Eastern country leads to incessant bombings, murders, and killings that our military force is powerless to stop. And how ironic that many others like myself, who saw no point in initiating this embarassing skirmish, pay no attention to the almost daily headlines that chronicle the deaths of Iraqis, Americans, and Europeans alike. We've become desensitized to something that, had it happened five miles away from where we lived, or even in this country, we would otherwise be up in political arms about.

Is this a way of making us oblivious to our misgivings about the invasion of Iraq? They probably figure, "Half the people agree with our decision. We'll barrage the other half's news circuits with constant reports of bombings so that it becomes third-class news--no one will pay attention to the hundreds of people killed in Iraq each year when another ~~candidate for the Axis of Evil~~ Middle Eastern country won't disarm its theoretical nukes or when Tom Cruise's box office smash breaks records." If this is their line of thinking, then the current administration (and the media who answers to its beck and call) is winning in its efforts to place everyone in some state of unquestioning placation.

The most tragic thing of all this is that these headlines truly do belong intermingled with the more banal fare, because we live in a world where Iraqi bombings have become as commonplace as the daily weather report. And I will continue to pass over them while drinking my Diet Coke.

notes from the underground

2006-05-06T01:41:00.001-04:00

all week, i've been planning a really great entry extolling the virtues of the non-relationship (henceforth NR) for both its stability and flexibility. i was going to compare relationships to organized religion (ie, a cultural construct) used to limit and control people, making us angry, jealous, suspicious, and overly emotional. it was going to be clever, post-modern, and entirely genuine.

however, now i'm not so sure.

as of this afternoon, when i said non-relationship i implied a very comfortable agreement with someone you love and trust (there's the stability part) in which you can basically do whatever you want (hence flexibility), but at the end of the day there's someone who honestly cares about you and tells you she loves you. thus, in one week i made out with five girls, but at the same time Q(x?)GF was still the same sweet person she'd been since the beginning of the NR. in fact, things were better once the relationship ended and the NR began.

i was loving this arrangement. but today she got evasive when i tried to tell her i love her on the telephone, and now i'm not so certain.
i'm trying to be an anthropologist about this: language, after all, is a construct as well. why do i need to hear those words anyway? but anthropologists have feelings too, and mine are largely a mix of
a. being horny
b. being insecure
= a fatal combination, especially to the already intellectually-confused mind.

i'm not going to say anything about human nature. i hate it when people say "it's human nature to [ fill in the blank]." people very rarely have any cross-cultural knowledge with which to substantiate such claims. it isn't "human nature" to be insecure about the words (or lack thereof) you use to describe and define a relationship; as my favorite anthropology professor tells us (i hope you're reading, dr. b-h) "if it were instinct, everyone would act that way" and not everyone does. i honestly believe that our obsession with coupling (monogamous or otherwise) comes from living in an extremely individualistic, capitalist culture in which there are only certain socially sanctioned ways to rely on people (emotionally or otherwise), the main way being a monogamous (usually heterosexual) relationship. perhaps if it were acceptable to seek emotional and physical intimacy from friends (or strangers, whatever; i'm just hypothesizing) without seeming needy or promiscious, people would rely on finding and maintaining relationships less.
well, there's one more factor fueling our obesssion: hollywood.
no movie, be it a feminism-lite sports flick, political thriller, or cartoon (for christ's sake) is complete without a romantic main- or sub-plot. it isn't enough to save the day, unless you get the guy in the end as well.
[the message perhaps being: don't worry; strong women still need men!]
but who am i to talk about what people need? i'm writing an online journal entry stressing about the fact that my Q(x?)GF doesn't want to say she loves me anymore. i apologize.

coming soon: the dyke trophy wife gets serious in an entry entitled immigration is the sincerest form of flattery

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-05-04T21:19:00.000-04:00

hell
n.

1. Religion: A place that the clergy threatens the laity with for not contributing to the collection, knowing full well that the verity of its existence would grant them instant admission.

2. Sex: A sexual partner's uncontrollable sobs drowning out your own vocalization of passion; faking an orgasm and later realizing the doom of perpetually mediocre sex without climax

3. Politics: see 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

notable quote

2006-05-04T19:15:00.000-04:00

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

-Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin, in response to an anti-gay marriage statement, as quoted in The Advocate

the personal really is political.

2006-05-02T14:27:00.000-04:00

Last night I was planning a clever entry full of witty jokes and intellectual metaphors, but sometimes the real world intervenes on even my most well-intentioned cerebral masturbation:
My friend Marie told me that her girlfriend, who is in the armed forces, was raped by a fellow serviceman Friday night.
I don’t know what to think and I don’t know what to feel, except for selfish for writing about my own feelings when people I care about are hurting so much more.
How does Marie feel? How does the survivor feel?
What does it feel like to be a sober man who rapes a drunk woman? I don’t know if it would be appropriate to wish death upon an American serviceman, but as this blog demonstrates, I don’t really care about appropriateness. I hope you die as soon as possible and as painfully as possible.

An intellectual exercise: I dare you to google “rape.” Google “torture” or “brutality” or “poverty” or “genocide.” Realize that the world is a web of shittiness, terrible and interconnected. What can you do about it? What am I going to do about it?

It is only in the moments that those things that usually seem like newspaper-headline, blog-fodder, service-project material come to life and it is only in the moments when I stop thinking and start feeling that I realize that the personal really is political, and that my noisy soapboxes and classroom rants really do relate to people’s lives, including my own. These moments are painful and beautiful and necessary; they renew my commitment to making changes in the world (however scholarship-essay that may sound) but not without first examining myself.

Marie and Jill, my thoughts are with you both.

Lots of Bush. Everywhere.

2006-05-01T13:17:00.000-04:00

George H.W.
OCCUPATION: 41st President of the United States, Reanimated Corpse
CLAIM TO FAME: Married to the only living survivor of the American Revolution. Invaded Panama. Invaded Iraq but withdrew. Vomited on Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: Banned broccoli from being served on Air Force One and in the White House during State dinners. Now that's clout.

George W.
OCCUPATION: Current President of the United States,
CLAIM TO FAME: "Former" alcoholic. Governor of That State With The People With Big Hair and Cowboy Boots (NOTE: I've been to Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston. This is a wholly validated generalization). Married a cybernetic being. Shat on The Geneva Convention. Let's not forget the little Iraq snafu and spilling the beans about classified information.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: The word "strategery."

John Ellis "Jeb"
OCCUPATION: Governor of Florida. Fat, Ugly Son Who Didn't Get as Much Love From Barbara as George Did So Expresses His Frustration By Being a Total Asshole
CLAIM TO FAME: Made Florida education system worse. Shamed the family by becoming a dirty, dirty Catholic. Exercised his belief in pro-life by trying to keep Terri Schiavo on a feeding tube.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: Sat on his haunches while four hurricanes wrecked parts of Florida and let FEMA take care of incompetence.

Neil
OCCUPATION: Texas businessman. Ironically nicknamed "Mr. Perfect" by his siblings.
CLAIM TO FAME: Ran Silverado Savings & Loan into the ground. Gets paid a $60,000 yearly consulting fee by Crest Investments for answering phone calls. Admittedly solicited sex from no less than four Thai and Hong Kong hookers (although he claimed that it was not for a fee). Allegedly fathered a child with one of his mother's correspondence aides, but evaded a paternity test.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: E-mailed his wife of twenty-two years to tell her he no longer loved her and wanted a divorce. And they say chivalry is dead.

Marvin
OCCUPATION: Portfolio manager and co-founder of Winston Capital Management.
CLAIM TO FAME: As director of Securacom/Stratesec, coincidentally ended a security contract for the World Trade Center on September 10, 2001. Mysteriously found a long-time babysitter crushed to death by her own car in the driveway in front of his family home.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: Not sure yet, but it probably involves some freak murder/accident.

And let's not forget the lovely offspring of these wonderful men:

Jenna and Barbara, the first twins, engaging in one of their allegedly regular displays of intoxicated shenanigans:

Here's a mugshot of Noelle (daughter of Jeb) after being booked in Florida for trying to score Xanax:

And perhaps my worst nightmare: Lauren (daughter of Neil), looking like nothing other than a Rollins-esque snob destined for a life of quaalude-filled hausfraudom.

anthropology in action

2006-04-28T21:16:00.000-04:00

don't get me wrong, i fully comprehend and agree with the surgeon general's warning about the hazards of tobacco (& arsenic & rat poison & carbon monoxide & tar) consumption. smoking is bad. don't start. quit now, or as soon as you finish that last cigarette. or the rest of the pack, or the carton. what's that you say, you own stock in phillip morris? a tobacco plantation?

in any case, as an anthropologist (and big nerd) i would like to examine the ritual functions of cigarette smoking, purchase, and exchange among college students.
[ tone: intellectually tongue-in-cheek]

smoking a cigarette with a friend can provide a much needed 5-10 minute break from one's rigirous schedule of writing papers (in my case) or playing beer pong. because smoking has a definitive beginning, middle, and end, it isn't considered rude to hop up shortly thereafter to get back to your homework (or beer pong; whichever)
social obligation is created when one student "bums" a cigarette from another. one of my housemates, for example, is a frequent bummer of cigarettes, but gave me a lovely purple lighter in return. not to mention the wonderful conversations we've had (sometimes when one of us is crying) under the guise of "wanna smoke a cigarette?"
you thus create a network of people that "owe" you one, a web of small nicotine-infused favors. it's in everyone's best interest to share cigarettes, of course, since all smokers like smoking, and nobody has cigarettes all the time.
being part of the (insert residence hall here) smokers club is an excellent way to hear gossip and make friends; the creation and fortification of a college social network is very important if you ever want find people with whom to hook up or get wasted.
duh.

no comment.

2006-04-27T23:57:00.000-04:00

you have to love the art school kids for finding stuff like this.

How to Host a Proper Orgy, Part One

2006-04-27T20:42:00.000-04:00

Many people think the best orgies occur in the spur of the moment, when the opposite is true--if not mapped out, an orgy can become a tangled mess of bodies and egos. On the other hand, a well-planned orgy can be a pleasurable and fun exchange between friends, even if nothing goes as planned.

Step One: Make a list, and check it twice.
One of the most important things in planning an orgy is having the right sexual company. If you're gay or lesbian, it's probably easier for you to determine that you want an all male/all female orgy. However, if you're open-mindedly straight (hey, if you weren't, you wouldn't be planning an orgy in the first place) or bisexual or omnisexual/try-sexual/whatever classification you may give yourself, you must first decide whether or not you want a fully same-sex experience or if you want to go for the mixed bag. If this is your first time, decide on what your gut feels most comfortable with. Also, be sure to settle on a good number--don't worry about odd numbers, because things will work out if you choose wisely.

Further, don't be too ambitious in what type of people you want in your orgy. If you think you can get away with an orgy solely comprised of Adriana Lima or Scarlett Johanssen lookalikes, think again. You are probably dealing with high-maintenance types, which does not bode well for any pleasure you may be hoping to receive. Further, the likelihood of you achiveing this mixture of beauties may largely correlate with the amount of Mexican Snuff Powder you are able to obtain in one given evening.

If you're a hetero female and your sexual life's ambition is to be entangled with five incredibly gorgeous men, you're asking for too much. No straight men will willingly engage in a full-on cooperative orgy with each other--the most you can hope for is a train. Don't even think about asking gay men unless you're planning on being a spectator.

Be realistic about your orgy invitations. Don't settle for people you're not into just because you feel sure they'd say yes. Be sure to choose people with whom you feel some degree of attraction--it also helps if they at least think you're cute. The pixie who works at the record store and calls you personally everytime there's a new release she thinks you might like? Check. The guy watching himself pump iron in the mirror while wearing striped Bike shorts? Not so check (then again, this may be your thing--but don't rely on him to add any significant, er, contribution to the mix).

If you're not experienced in orgy planning, stick to friends with whom you might consider initiating "benefits" (or at least people whose sexual preferences you feel comfortable with). While it may seem exciting to invite a random person into the mix, you may in fact be inviting someone who has a soiled diaper fetish. This may end in tears (unless you happen to be into that). Be sure to invite people who seem relatively comfortable with their sexuality and yours, whatever it may be. If you don't know where certain people stand, conduct surreptitious interviews. A tipsy night of high-school-style Truth or Dare works (just make sure you save the multiple blowjobs for the actual orgy).

So get working on the list. Next, we'll discuss how to actually invite people on your list.

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-04-27T20:30:00.000-04:00

burning bush
n.

1. in religion, the plant from which occured God's revelation to Moses in Exodus 3: 1-4, 17.

2. In politics, the supposed fate of the current president in the event of a revolutionary takeover.

3. In sex, a sign that one has been more careless in one's sexual dalliances than imagined.

i ate the meatballs, and they were delicious.

2006-04-26T22:24:00.000-04:00

part of me really, really wants to be a vegetarian. [i've even been told i look like one, whatever that means]
i really do think factory farms are gross and cruel, which would put me in the category of a Moral Vegetarian.

Some (not all) MVs are really self-rightous about the fact that they don't consume animal's flesh. it's very Christian Right, if you think about it. i totally 100% support people making informed dietary decisions (leigh, if you're reading this, thank you for showing me vegan lunch box because i think it totally rocks. this post is in no way directed at you or your good-natured freganism)
moral vegetarians can't slip up the way "For Health Reasons" herbivores can. if you eschew meat because of your cholesterol or [insert condition here], sometimes it may be okay to indulge in a chicken finger.
but for a MV to slip up would be like Phyllis Schlafly supporting the ERA or Jerry Falwell urging his followers to enjoy wanton gay sex at mardi gras...counter to a fundamental belief system.
when people find out you're a vegetarian, they want to know why. then they want to argue with you, or at least most of my extended family did when my sisters and i went through various meat-resistance phases.

besides which, there are some things that i just cannot divorce from my system. tonight, for example, at the lit magazine reception, there was a dainty display of finger foods...and meatballs. in addition to the fact that i was really hungry, meatballs are one of my favorite things ever, because when i was little my mother made them on my birthday every year.
[apparently someone else felt the same way; danger snatch informs me she saw a woman putting some in her purse.]

one of my goals this summer is to learn to cook very delicious vegetarian food for myself and my loved ones. hopefully then i can figure out what i shall henceforth call my dietary identity.

yum, identity politics.

one of the many, many reasons i love dorothy allison

2006-04-26T16:37:00.000-04:00

"The first night I'd slept with Cass, I'd rolled over and laughed out loud when we'd finished making love. 'Goddamn!' I'd yelled. 'I love my life.' Cass had laughed back into my face, pulling me down to start all over again."
-"The Muscles of the Mind," from Trash by Dorothy Allison

'Cause sex should always be that good.

lesbians 1, punk rock homophobes 0

2006-04-24T18:31:00.000-04:00

on saturday, i had the pleasure of meeting some great new kids, daytona photographers. they are my quasi-ex-girlfriend's classmates [Q(x?)GF, or simply C, from this point on], and she's an unusually perceptive judge of character, so i figured they were the cool cats she described them to be. we were eating lunch/dinner/early bird special, when Q(x?)GF invited the group (Shawn, Summer, Moe, Melinda, and Savannah) to go to a gay club to see drag queens and other such queer frivolities that evening.

moe immediately freaks out. "if i went there, i'd get arrested for burning the fucking place down." he went on to explain how much he hated the fags and the queers; how fucked up and unnatural it is for men to wear dresses and women to dress like men; ranted about his bisexual ex-girlfriend, who cheated on him (with a guy, i gather); he told her she was a disgusting dyke when she starting dating women and dressing more butch. numerous times he said, "i can't support that" or told us how "fucking pissed" the queers made him.

C and i exchanged sideways looks: did he realize that two of the seven people at the table were, indeed, queer and more or less together? what are we supposed to do? dyke is not a word heterosexual males are allowed to use, especially in that context. we had been affectionate with each other all afternoon; were we the next targets of his anger, or were we both straight enough looking that his concept of justice would pass us over?

now let me describe moe for you. he looks old-school hardass punk rock (combat boots, suspenders, blazer with jeans); maybe the type to enjoy moshing, but drag queen arson? he was also liberally tattooed and otherwise adorned with crosses. he had seemed nothing but sweet, until his angry and very intimidating outburst. i made zero assumptions about his personality from the way he was dressed, and had been really enjoying his company.

keep in mind that this is at olive garden, at 4:30 on a saturday afternoon. most of the people are either a. old or b. kids having dinner before prom.

C and i had this conversation in the car after we made our hasty exit: i am not certain about very many things, but i can say without a shadow of a doubt that prejudices like that are not true. had i been neither uncomfortable nor in a restaurant, i could have told moe that he was one-hundred percent wrong in both his perception and hatred of "the queers."

hypothetics: if i were sitting in olive garden with my neighbor (the president of the Southern Baptist Convention) i would never, ever tell him that i hated his religion. i would certainly engage him in lively debate about sex, politics, and religion (do you think he would like to become the third contributor to three dirty words?) but making such blatantly hateful but non-critical analyses masks the true nature of the issues i would like to discuss with someone whose beliefs contradict mine. this is not because i'm a "good person;" but i also don't want to alienate someone from whom i can learn something, even while remaining in my certainty that i am, indeed, correct. [i would, however, stop at kinsey's letting the child molester go free]

and for the record, both savannah and melinda (moe's girlfriend) went to the gay club and had a delightful time.

You Snooze, You Lose.

2006-04-23T23:13:00.000-04:00

During Hu Jintao's visit, Dick Cheney takes time out to ~~dream about pumping birdshot in Liberal ass~~ "look at his notes."

If Dick Cheney can get away with sleeping on the job while serving post as one of the most powerful people in the free world, does this give me a viable excuse for skipping Film class for a nap?

Cheney Snoozes (abcnews.com)

Mother Teresa--yikes.

2006-04-23T20:10:00.001-04:00

Here's some stuff that you may or may not have known about Mother Teresa:

In a 1981 press conference, a reporter asked her: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" Mother Teresa's response: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

In her Nobel Prize speech, Mother Teresa described abortion as "the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace ... Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves or one another? Nothing." Further, when asked about a case in Ireland about a 14-year-old rape victim, Mother Teresa replied: "Abortion can never be necessary because it is pure killing." Besides this, Mother Teresa disapproved of all forms of contraception (yes, that includes jimmy hats).

When Indira Gandhi imposed martial law on India in 1974, Mother Teresa publicly expressed her support for the government's tactics, which included an effort in controlling the poor population--the indigent were rounded up and forcibly sterilized.

Mother Teresa willingly accepted a Legion d'Honneur from nontorious Haitian dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, after which she claimed Duvalier "cared for his poor, and they care deeply for him." (Don't get the implications? Read about Baby Doc here and here). She also paid homage to Enver Hoxha, an Albanian leader who imprisoned and murdered thousands in efforts to consolidate land into collectives, by laying a wreath on his grave much to the chagrin of her compatriots (Mother Teresa was Albanian).

Perhaps the most interesting (to me, anyway):
"During one of her hospitalizations in Calcutta, the local archbishop noticed that Mother T had a habit of fitfully pulling out her EKG sensors at night. He told her that she 'might be under the attack of the evil one' and offered to arrange an exorcism. She agreed. After it was over, the archbishop says M.T. 'slept like a baby.' From which one could reasonably conclude that Satan had indeed been working to possess her." (rotten.com's profile of Mother Teresa)

And, as expected, there's plenty more where this came from. Read The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice by Christopher Hitchens. It's better than any romance novel.

relationship ethnocentrism

2006-04-23T17:21:00.000-04:00

to most people, (and the United States Government), there are only a handful of relationship statuses, namely single, in a relationship (or for important forms, married), divorced, and widowed. might i suggest a few more to realistically represent the true demographic?

the popular college website thefacebook.com gives the options of in an open relationship with _____ as well as the enigmatic it's complicated. the latter is an especially good start in truly showing the diverse array of relationships (or consensual lacks thereof) in our culture; if we're taught to accept religious and ethnic diversity (within limits, or course) why not celebrate the creative and occasionally even functional) ways in which people couple and otherwise group themselves sexually and economically. for let us remind ourselves of the anthropological definition of marriage: a grouping of two or more people with certain economic functions and sexual privileges. in order to see our ethnocentrism for what it really is, i've compiled a list of other sorts of relationships with which i am personally or vicariously familiar.

what about the conditional monogamy of which our own danger snatch writes?
what about those of us who have recently ended a two-year relationship, while still sharing both bed and emotional intimacy with our ex-lover?
what about those of us who have the dubious pleasure of saying "more or less" when asked if the attractive femme on our arm is, indeed, our girlfriend?
what about serial fuck-buddies?
what about the woman i met last night who is getting married to two women (not in the eyes of the law, i presume) in the coming months?
what about that couple in high school (everbody knew one) that was perpetually breaking up and getting back together?
what about heterosexuals participating in the marriage resistance movement, use the term partner and are not married in the eyes of the law?
what about the unspoken yet deeply intimate non-relationship you had in 10th grade that consisted mainly intense hand-holding, but culminated in a torrid night of spooning?
what about people who break up with the explicit understanding that they will get back together eventually? (my friend despina and i refer to this as the boomerang relationship. a boomerang relationship could, however, turn into an Amelia Earhart, which your boomerang goes down over the ocean somewhere and is never seen again)

i could think of tons more, but i have a paper to write and my own relationship, quasi-relationship, or non-relationship to ponder.

On a slow boat to China.

2006-04-23T12:03:00.000-04:00

(Blogger's note: My grandmother used to say that to me all the time. I have no clue what it means, but there are more nonsensical similes/metaphors/analogies in this post.)

One can only wonder how such a significant, historic meeting as the one that occurred between ~~village idiot~~ President George W. Bush and Chinese ~~distraction~~ President Hu Jintao could have possibly been so anticlimactic. With a list of important issues to discuss, such as globalization of trade, the War on Terror (AKA The Great Fiasco), and nuclear arsenals.

This morning, I read the official White House transcript of Dubya's speech. It droned on and on like one of those CultureGram projects your seventh grade geography teacher gives you when you're supposed to pretend like you've been to Estonia or Albania or Indonesia but you really don't learn shit about the culture from a packet so you end up sounding like you're reading from the damn paper anyway.

Intially, George drones on (with what could only have been derived from a middle school World Cultures project that he hijacked from a White House staffer's kid) about his idealistic hope that China becomes "a responsible member of the international economic system and a responsible member of the World Trade Organization" (better be careful what you wish for--if our economy doesn't get back on track soon, Dubya, you may just find yourself looking back at this and shaking your head).

As I expected, Dubya quickly spins his agenda around to "threats to global security." His list:
"The nuclear ambitions of Iran;
the genocide in Darfur, Sudan;
the violence unleashed by terrorists and extremists; and
the proliferations of the weapons of mass destruction."

I'm not denying that in some respects these seem like important global issues. Coming from Trigger Happy George's mouth, however, it sounds like he's rattling off a multiple choice that he made up the night before:
"Which of these things is not like the others?
A) Britney Spears;
B) people who actually need my help but my administration put this on the back burner because photos of shaking hands with a ~~goddamn Commie chink~~ progressive Asian leader is more important for my image as an accepting world leader, and furthermore all our troops are babysitting Iraqis instead of being available to help the people who suffer in Darfur;
C) Jessica Simpson; or
D) Lindsay Lohan.
(I'm sure George Dubya would pick C, because she, unlike the others, is a natural blonde.)

Anyway, I can't help that this meeting was forged in order to appease the global forum in some part, because Bob knows we could use the public relations bonanza. So we try to prove that America (whom, if the world stage were the current season American Idol, would play the role of that one stupid Southern blonde girl who pretends to be absolutely dumb but you can see in her eyes that she knows exactly what she's doing and has a contingency plan to shank and even murder that cute Rainbow Brite black girl and the brunette who actually has talent if she needs to) can ~~condescend~~ play nice with controversial countries after having stamped our boots all over the Middle East. Why aren't we intervening where it makes sense (i.e. Darfur)? I can only suppose that would be like deciding to shoot five innocents and one murderous criminal, then asking to only be held accountable for taking out the bad guy.

So I guess I should feel good about the United States' efforts to connect diplomatically with China. As unlearned as I am about diplomatic procedures, though, my gut (which is grumbling from an all you can eat fete at 'Ohana's) is telling me that this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship--one that allows Dubya easy access to 1.3 billion allies and back door access to Kim Jong Il's house.

Oh, and please educate yourself on the situation in Darfur. It's really worth a look, and worth your concern. (SaveDarfur.org)

If you tweak them, they will come.

2006-04-22T00:40:00.000-04:00

So here's the deal: nipples are excellent in general. Men like them. Women like them. Babies like them.

Erect nipples, in particular, have a tendency to awaken primeval sexual lust. The nipple is obviously the most erotic part of the breast, which is why standard American print media renders them taboo. We'll allow Pamela Anderson to show ninety percent of her VW Beetle-sized breasts, but you only get to see the perkiness if you buy from the likes of Playboy and Juggs.

So, of course, men and women follow the nipples. And other women follow the men and women who follow the nipples. Someone noticed this and decided to capitalize by creating false nipples, so that women could have perpetually perky nipples and be ogled by the men and women who faithfully follow the nipples.

I'm going to be frank (and yes, you can be Shirley). As a person with PENs (Perpetually Erect Nipples), I'm not wholly excited about this. I find it hilarious that women are actually paying money to have erect nipples, when I have to deal with my nipples (whom I call Derek and Hansel, respectfully, because of their constant walk-offs) standing at attention at any given moment.

I envy my fellow smaller-chested (but boobiliciously perky and awesome) women who can get away with wearing bras. Me? I have to wear padded bras because Derek and Hansel show through regular ones. Further, if you look in one of the bras I keep in regular rotation, you will notice the imprints. Yes, it's that bad. Cold weather is horrid. Warm weather is bearable, but the slightest change in room temperature and you might just see Derek and Hansel a mile away.

As a woman, I like to be looked at on occasion (some feminists will say that I'm allowing myself to become the Object, but being admired to an extent is sometimes a nice affirmation for my self-esteem). However, I don't like to draw attention to myself by being The Braless Wonder. If I do dare to go braless, I end up wearing a hoodie just in case I need a quick zip-up--whether men find me attractive or not, nipples are like magnets for their eyes (call it not-so-latent oral fixation). When I go to the gym, my sports bra offers plenty of anti-bounce support; when the blood starts pumping through my body, though, Derek and Hansel are smiling at me in the mirror as I do chest presses.

To make matters worse, the only thing I can do to alleviate this issue is (as fate would have it) is to manually stop Derek and Hansel in their tracks. Needless to say, there's not many ways a girl can get away with surreptitiously rubbing her breasts in public. Hansel and Derek are like the little girl with the curl--when they're good, they're very, very good (in the sensation department) but when they're bad, they're horrid. There's nothing exciting or sexy about having constantly erect nipples if you want people to take you seriously in any capacity.

Sure, false nipples will make some women look and feel more sexually attractive, but at least they can remove them when the wrong attention heads their way. Me? I get to cross my arms, zip up my hoodie, and flee the scene.

The French AREN"T glad to die for love.*

2006-04-21T17:31:00.000-04:00

I know plenty of amicable French people (well, maybe only two), but I have some slight qualms about their contributions to the public--they invented mayonnaise, the guillotine, the pantomime, and of course, the wonder that is the Maginot Line. However, the French seem to have gotten something right with their production of effective campaigns against unprotected sex and the spread of AIDS. However surreal, they do seem to speak volumes for their cause. So in this sense, I do envy the French for taking initiative to use the public voice. When was the last time you saw a powerful anti-AIDS campaign in the United States?

Exhibit A:
It took me a while to think on the relevance of the absent man and lady parts, but I think it's saying that if you're going to be irresponsible, you might as well not be allowed to have genitalia.
The captions on the ads for this campaign roughly read (forgive my French-literally-it's rusty):

"DOESN'T AIDS CONCERN YOU?
"Each day, twenty people are infected in France. Gay and straight, men and women, they think sex without a condom was a sign of confidence. Now they know it is the opposite. Only condoms protect from AIDS."

Exhibit B:
I think these insect ads are my favorite--they're pretty blatant in creating a metaphor for unprotected sex.

Exhibit C:
This one's pretty bizarre (it's literally a "dickhead"), but I think its point comes across.
The caption to this one says something like: "Condoms are like a good bath: once inside, you don't want to get out."

Exhibit D:
And last but not least, this campaign demonstrates that no one is invincible when it comes to AIDS and unprotected sex.
The caption reads something like: "Everyone should be concerned about AIDS."

As much as Americans may dislike the French, we must give them credit for actually using their government resources to educate people towards something as important as perpertuating safe sex practices and not just copping out with a bullshit "abstinence is the only way" initiative.

*A play on the famous opening line from Marilyn Monroe's song "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend."

proof that gay men do, indeed, like to talk about female reproductive organs

2006-04-21T01:45:00.000-04:00

[scene: various housemates and i are walking back from the land of On Campus Dining and we see something cute. a puppy maybe?]

dtw: "diego," this is sort of gross, but i think i must be ovulating, because everything i see is really cute, and i think my body is telling me to make babies.
diego: aww!

Conditional Monogamy II: Open Relationships

2006-04-20T00:35:00.000-04:00

So here's my other end of the Conditional Monogamy spectrum: the Open Relationship.

Remember when I told you that people don't get my philosophies on relationships? This issue is where things usually tend to get annoying. If at some point in time I happen to be in an open relationship, a condescending naysayer who doesn't know the whole story and is too afraid to call me a skank-whore to my face but really wants to, as indicated by their clenched jaw, will inevitably ask, "Why would you want to be in an open relationship?" or "What is the point of being in an open relationship?"

My usual answer, dear reader, is the only answer you should have to give regarding any of your decisions that has shit to do with them: "It works for me." (You could tell them to mind their own fucking business and plant a boot squarely in their abdomen, but this is only acceptable behavior within the Five Boroughs.)

Here's how I, the Conditional Monogamist, see an Open Relationship. I don't expect my partner and I to base the better part of our sex life on having regular intercourse and swapping multiple partners who dwell outside of our Chinese Love Basket. For me, having an Open Relationship is not collecting random bedfellows while my partner ires (or derives immense enjoyment, for that matter). But I don't dictate my perferences for anyone else. In fact, Open Relationships can't be generally or statistically quantified in terms of how many partners one is alloted in a given period of time; Open Relationships depend on the private agreements of two people, who really don't need to justify their decisions to anyone but themselves (and to a lesser extent, any participating third parties).

Of course, an Open Relationship can only work if two people are like-minded in their sexual practices. Some people prefer to add multiple conditions, like a basic "don't ask, don't tell, don't bring home VD" policy. Some like to enjoy multiple partners together. Some say an Open Relationship is only okay if the other person's away for a while; some allow Open Relationships to occur in the general vicinity of where they live. It all depends on customization--what works best for both parties.

I'm not saying that strictly monogamist relationships are wrong--they can be great, and I specified earlier that I am willing and highly capable of being in one for however long it manages to work. But the fact of the matter is that each relationship entered will vary in what pushes our emotional limits; in certain cases, the issue of being sexually open hasn't been a threat to me or my partner. In others, there have been times where I would have been devastated to think of my partner with another woman. In my case, deciding whether or not to have an Open Relationship has to be played by ear.

The main rule of an Open Relationship, no matter how else the couple decides to play it, is this: no forming attachments on an emotional level. Both partners should make this clear from the outset to anyone they may decide to hook up with.
Of course, some numbnuts will ask, "Well, why risk the chances of this happening by having sex?" The fact of the matter is this: if a person is not mature enough to know that sex in itself does not formulate a foundation for any emotion other than lust/infatuation/limerence (which can and usually will fade at the drop of a hat), then they shouldn't be in any kind of relationship. Further, a person could emotionally cheat on his/her partner without ever having sex by falling in love with someone else (after all, love without sex is possible).

Open Relationships aren't for everyone, and I will never attempt to push the idea of them upon people. I can't tell you exactly for which type of person this works, and I can't promise there won't be flaws--all relationships are flawed by nature, and there are a million ways any given relationship could go wrong. My only hope is that people in Open Relationships won't be so quickly branded by close-minded notions--"to each his own" is always a nice thing to say if you want to disagree without getting roundhouse kicked in the gut.

Looking for group sex in the Lord? - mw4mw

2006-04-19T22:19:00.000-04:00

So now I've heard of everything.
Christians are generally known for only condoning sex that occurs within a marital arrangement with one partner.
The Liberated Christians are a group of Christians who also enjoy swinging (if you don't know what swinging is, step away from this blog). I'm not against swinging, but I'm annoyed by this level of hypocrisy.
So if you're a practicing Christian, apparently it's now acceptable to commit adultery and covet another's wife (or husband). Next, those crazy Christians will be worshiping graven images--oh, wait, that's why one of my kooky neighborhood denizens has a huge effigy of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in her yard that she prays to on holy days.

Start Swinging For Jesus (Liberated Christians)

Oh, and on a funnier note: DateJesus.com is pretty fucking hilarious.

loaded question

2006-04-19T14:34:00.000-04:00

"Are You Normal About Sex? Intimate Details on What Everyone's Doing"

according to the february 2006 issue of Glamour, the average woman...
has had 4 sexual partners by age 44 (what women are they talking about? this seems suspiciously low)
lost her virginity at 16
has sex for 45 minutes (including foreplay, mind you)
goes on 5.5 dates before having sex
takes 15 minutes to achieve orgasm (after beginning intercourse)
has sex 117 times per year

i suppose, in a way, it's nice to reassure people that things they think are weird aren't ("32 percent of women admit to having had anal sex by age 24"!); but at the same time it's dangerous to comfort yourself with the idea of a statistical normalcy. i find that in our culture, quirks are tolerated within a certain narrow idea of what being "unique" is; we're highly individualistic but your individualism still needs to fit in. like everything i read, this article (well, article lite; it's only a page and there are lots of pictures) has raised a handful of pertinent questions:

what if a seventeen-year-old virgin (or heaven forbid, a college freshman) reads this and decides she needs to lose her V-card ASAP?
if you're going through a "dry spell," wouldn't these numbers make you feel even worse?
does the average Glamour reader represent the "average" woman?
are you going to judge your husband/boyfriend/bootycall/gigalo's performance by the mind-blowingness (let us hope) of your own orgasm, or some weird-ass magazine column?
what if you like to get tied down and fisted while a third party blows on the back of your knees?
what if the only thing that can make you come is being called "oberfurher" by an obese man in full bondage gear?

what about all of us who really don't see our sexualities in this picture of normal? this attempt at reassuring women still reinforces the notion that there is a narrow spectrum of normal, but according to our article, don't you fit it? i pretty much think that all satisfying, consenual orgasms are a good thing, but according to Glamour, you are only normal if you have 30 minutes of foreplay and 15 minutes of intercourse every 3.1 days after the age of 16.

Too Many Cooks?

2006-04-19T11:34:00.000-04:00

In light of the fact that the city of New Orleans has seen a lot of tragedy, suffered from a lot of underpreparedness, and now stands a shot at rebuilding itself to something better, I've been keeping up somewhat with its impending mayoral election to be held on 22 April (which is on a Saturday, but whatever--to each his own).

I'm surprised that there are actually twenty-four candidates running for the position. For a city that needs such a dramatic overhaul, I'm frankly surprised that anyone would be up to such a daunting task. To become new mayor of New Orleans at this time would have a drastic effect on one's personal image. Most of the citizens are looking for a fearless leader who will step up to the arduous rebuilding task, and the candidates are not lacking in their promises to do so:

Kimberly Williamson Butler, who was fired during her stint as CAO under Mayor Nagin's administration, claims: "I represent every person who feels that their voice hasn't been heard, every person who has been incarcerated, right or wrongly. I can rank myself among many heroes: Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.”

Ron Forman proposes to use the riverbank as a "new front porch for the city."

"Johnny" Adriani says, “Things don't really look any different than they did right after the storm. As I told my father, 'If someone doesn't do something, we may as well leave.”

Then there are candidates who propose holding regular emergency evacuation drills (for a population for 1.4 million in the Metro Area? Brilliant); some who put forth generic platforms that could be applicable to just about any city (one says New Orleans needs "an increase in affordable housing" and a resurgence of small businesses--wholly generic). One candidate even suggests brigning in revenue from other sources besides tourism and lists "shipbuilding" as an alternative (because it makes perfect sense that a city at such great risk to be devastated by a hurricane would do well in that respect).

It seems like all these people are pointing fingers and fussing about what should be done--none of their platforms correlate, so who's right about what New Orleans needs? As far as this cynic can see, each candidate's goal is not to be a servant of the city, but to one-up the other candidates and assume Hero Status as the Mayor Who Rebuilt New Orleans. I hope for their sake that they're already working towards helping the city, even if it means taking out time from their political platforms on high to go out and build a school or bring food to a homeless shelter.

I for one, agree with Mayor Nagin: New Orleans would be awesome as a chocolate city. Imagine being able to take a bite from a Godiva City Hall. Delicious.

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-04-19T00:32:00.000-04:00

pork barrel

n.

1. in politics, government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

2. in religion, the portly abdominal region of a priest who has had plenty of bacon on the dime of his congregation.

3. in sex, a partner's closed hand when used in fisting. Compound usage invented by the poster, derived from a dysphemism for vigorous coitus (i.e. porking) combined with the barrel-like shape of the hand in proper fisting position.

Conditional Monogamy: Yay or Nay?

2006-04-18T14:25:00.000-04:00

Most people with whom I have had an in-depth conversation about my relationship preferences know that I am a Conditional Monogamist. Most people who hear this don't understand--they think it's just another way of revealing my promiscuity (which is arbitrary--I'll never tell how many partners I've had, so don't ask).
So: I'm here to explain the basic tenets of a Conditional Monogamist. You don't have to like them, but it works for me.

Conditional Monogamy, at its basic level, means that I need certain relationship conditions in order for Monogamy to work. As far as monogamy goes, I believe that 80% of a commitment lies in emotional trust. In order for me to remain emotionally monogamous, I need a very secure emotional trust. I need to know that my partner can and will provide me with the emotional support I need, no questions asked. I'm not asking for a perpetual crutch, but I am asking for someone who would be willing to put themselves out there for my emotional well-being. When I have such an establishment, I do a pretty bang-up job of reciprocating for however long I have it.

As a Conditional Monogamist, I need said emotional foundation if I am expected to remain sexually monogamous. If I have a strong emotional attachment and the sex was already good to begin with, then la di da. I can even deal with a partner who needs help refining his sexual prowess (as long as he doesn't mind when I start barking out orders and sending him referrals to sex educators). If I feel a relationship is nurturing enough on an emotional level, I have no problem remaining sexually monogamous--in fact, if I have a strong emotional attachment, I'd prefer to have that person as my only sexual partner and would expect him to do the same. If emotional connection is lacking to a dangerous low, then I lose sexual attraction, and eventually the desire to be sexually monogamous towards that person; however, I will not cheat in this circumstance because it's not conducive to my attempts to rebuild the emotional trust. However, if this cannot be salvaged, I'd prefer to call it quits.

I'm of the belief that in a relationship, I have to view myself as number one before I can take care of another person emotionally and sexually. It sounds selfish, but relationships are selfish first and unselfish second by their very nature. We enjoy relationships because they make us feel good; as a by-product, we want to make the other person feel good in order to maintain our own happiness.

So, in short: Monogamy is great, as long as "mono-" is not an indicatior of how many people within the 'ship want to make it work. You put in for me, I put out only for you. Otherwise, I can take my heart and my goods elsewhere.

Tune in next time, dear reader, for my continuation on Conditional Monogamy: Open Relationships.

philosophical showdown

2006-04-18T12:21:00.000-04:00

so i'm having a personal crisis.

i don't know exactly how to explain it, but i'm trying to deconstruct american culture and all the ideology i've accepted as universal truth for the past nineteen years. i'm an anthropologist, and these things have to be done. emotionally, i want to continue believing in meritocracy and the american dream and all that good stuff, but intellectually i can do no such thing.

aside: this parallels the way i feel about open relationships; intellectually i support "an ongoing dialogue on the values and limitations of monogamy," but emotionally i have an extremely hard time knowing my girl is banging someone else. [more on this at a later date]

damn me for thinking too much! i can't enjoy the simplest experience, like driving over a bridge with my best girl, without thinking "i wonder who built this bridge. i wonder how much they were paid. do you think they were illegal immigrants? how did it affect the local economy? was the bridge really necessary? what were the environmental impacts?" playing pool with my daytona dykes turns into an interior monologue on gender roles. i can't take a shower, for crissakes, without thinking about my body image and the constantly changing size of my thighs. the idea of smoking becomes a philosophical showdown between health risks and ritual functions. i'm a big fucking nerd, and usually i love it.

except for now. this wave of disbelief has hit me in the past few days. maybe all my well-cited academia is wrong, and america really is a good place. maybe people do get ahead on the basis of merit. maybe there are really good reasons why i can't legally get married and that not everyone has affordable health care? that's bullshit and i know it. i've had a lot of privilege in my short life: being white and upper-middle class, parents who encouraged my creativity, a college scholarship; i've never been raped or the victim of blatant homophobia.

working through this is hard, and i don't expect any sympathy, but i want to be a person of conscience for the right reasons. i'm just afraid it's going to hit me all at once and i'm going to be overwhelmed with hatred and defeat. i just pray (figuratively speaking, that is) that this doesn't happen tonight, because i have a really, really big test tomorrow, and i want to be a person of conscience who keeps her college scholarship.

Political Retrospective

2006-04-17T02:02:00.000-04:00

January 26, 1998

What he said:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

What he should have said:
"And by 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman,' I mean we only got to second or third base. Those rounds of stinkfinger are totally worth the Senate hearing."

What we learned:
As the Supreme Leader of WASPs, the President of the United States is only allowed to have a sex life as dictated by the rules of WASPdom, which prohibits oral sex and "stinkfinger." Therefore, one can also assume the Bush twins were conceived by means of an unwarranted invasion of Laura Bush's womb, after which George W. proclaimed that Laura was not hiding weapons of mass destruction in her vagina as his intelligence (i.e., a fifth of Wild Turkey) led him to believe.

A Short Treatise on Sex, Rats and Cheese

2006-04-17T01:58:00.000-04:00

You know that quip that goes, “Sex is not the answer—sex is the question, and ‘yes’ is the answer”? There’s a postscript to that somewhere.

What is it about sex that has us all—straight, gay, bi, single, committed, in one of those open deals—in a rat race, looking for that one piece of cheese that will bring us unadulterated, complete sexual nirvana?

From the moment we get our first taste of sex, we’re bumping blindly into the sides or sitting at the sealed entrance waiting to turn back or trying to get around the two inches of walls because we know the cheese is just on the other side.

The secret to sexual nirvana is like the meaning of life. Some people have no clue, and some have an answer—but no one has THE answer.

The secret lingers in the twinkle of the eyes of someone who could get us to drop trou in the middle of a Baptist revival. It sits on the edge of the bed we share with the person we love. It condenses on the swizzle stick of our third vodka tonic. It rests in the “what if” arms of a friend that’s looking pretty damn good at the moment.

But we allow ourselves to be swept away, and the Secret flies away on our orgasmic pleasure to some mythical land where horses can fly and French people are genial to Americans. And it leaves us here, standing in its wake, where nothing is mutually exclusive.

We’re left wondering how someone so attractive could turn out to be an asshole; we’re so angry at our loved one for something that we want to drown a basket of kittens; we shake our heads the next morning to relieve the fuzziness and the shame; we screen our calls until we’re past the awkward “friends with benefits” crossover stage (and sometimes it never leaves).

And then there are those alternate moments where we’re cynical and don’t expect anything spectacular from the next shag, but an hour later we’re sweaty and elated and we still don’t have a fucking clue, because the Secret decided this time to swoop in on the orgasm wave and hit us with a jones so hard that we’ll never be able to see it through the high (which can last for a long time).

It gets so confusing. But here’s the kicker: none of us really want to drop out of the race, because the prospect of getting our hands on that stash of cheddar is worth the risk.

happy easter.

2006-04-16T23:19:00.000-04:00

i'm an atheist.

now, let me say that i am perfectly respectful of people who practice their spirituality as a personal relationship with their own personal conception of a higher being. i love the fact that some people can find this great happy peace with [insert deity/ies here] so long as this relationship doesn't condone hatred, discrimination, and other such nasties.

aside: i hate the fact that i have to make this statement to qualify my atheism. most people "of faith" do not apologize for believing in [insert deity/ies here] or assure you that they don't hate on the atheists, but i should so that i don't look like one of those heathenish baby killing homosexuals. oh wait...

please allow me one bad metaphor. i liken evangelism to rabid brand loyalty: say, for instance, that danger snatch will use nothing but charmin, while i own stock in angel soft and use nothing but. now, one day danger snatch finds out where my TP preferences lie, and she makes it a major goal in her life to get me to switch to charmin. she invites me to her house to use her toilet paper. she leaves cushy rolls of the stuff on my doorstep and in my mailbox. i can no longer spend time with her because our conversations invariably end up in a bathroom tissue debate. and why? so she can have the satisfaction of calling charmin's CEO one day and saying that she got another soul- i mean customer- hooked on their toilet paper over another?
unless danger snatch has evidence that angel soft causes cancer/dry mouth/erectile dysfunction, i don't care to know what she uses or why. i would rather not think about her bathroom hygeine routine, to be perfectly honest (no offense).

religion, my friends, is like toilet paper. everyone knows what they like (or maybe they just buy what's on sale), and pressing the issue of getting a friend (or stranger, for that matter) to change to your brand is irrelevant and somewhat obnoxious. "faith," if you have one, is between you and your [insert deity/ies here]; toilet paper is between you and your...you get the point.

please pass the jelly beans.

Happy Zombie Jesus Day!

2006-04-16T14:53:00.000-04:00

Ahhh, Easter. The time of year where you trade an hour of your life for a gift basket filled with tooth-decaying agents, a new Sunday best outfit, and a lifetime of dogma.

Since Easter is based solely on the concept of Christ's Resurrection and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Pagan traditions and fertility rites because Christians would NEVER condone such an association even though their holiday is ostensibly named for the Anglo-Saxon spring goddess Eostre, I looked up the concept of Resurrection in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I was confused beyond belief, so I turned to Encyclopedia Britannica, which says:
the rising from the dead of a divine or human being who still retains his own personhood, or individuality, though the body may or may not be changed.

Wikipedia adds:
The term resurrection is used in the literal sense to mean either the religious concept of the reunion of the spirit and the body of a dead person, or the return to life of a dead person.

So if we disavow the reimbibition of the soul, Easter is celebrating the resurrection, or reanimation of Jesus Christ in the flesh.
Let's see what Wikipedia says about "zombie":
Essentially a dead body re-animated by unnatural means....

Some would say that Jesus' resurrection was not unnatural. However, if one acknowledges his existence, one must also acknowledge that Jesus was a flesh and blood human, son of God or not. The Bible acknowledges humans as naturally sinful (2 Peter 2:18), and acknowledges that death is a by-product of said natural sin (Romans 6:23). Therefore, death is natural (although none of us need the Bible to tell us as much). So, "unnatural" would be a return from death through supernatural means.
Thus, if Jesus returned to his dead (and probably decaying) body, he was probably a zombie.

However, someone probably asked about this rotting corpse (which would make for a better zombie movie), and there is an explanation, as always.
1. Mary Magdalene finds Jesus' tomb empty and runs into an unrecognizable gardener, who is actually Jesus. She accuses him of taking the body, and Jesus says her name in such a way that makes her realize it's him. She tries to weep at his feet, but he says, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." (The Gospel of John, Chapter 20)
2. Jesus appears again to Mary Magdalene (he must have really liked her) and another woman (either Mary mother of James or Salome) "in a different form." (The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 16)
3. Jesus appears to two of his disciples (Cleopas and an unnamed), who "were kept from recognizing him." (Gospel of Luke, Chapter 24)
4. Jeus appears to his apostles, who don't get that it's him until he shows the nail marks in his hands and the wound in his side (from the crucifixion and soldier's spear, respectively). Only then do they recognize Jesus. (The Gospel of John, Chapter 20)

So, either Jesus was one hell of a master of disguise, or he had a different body with the same marks superimposed into them. Hmmm. A person's soul leaves one body to return to earth in another corporeal form...didn't those evil heathen Hindus come up with something like this called reincarnation?

Of course, all this is all irrelevant, because Jesus ultimately ascends to heaven. One can only assume that the Easter bunny handled all his travel and accomodations.

Happy Easter.

Like Space Operas? - mw4mw

2006-04-14T22:37:00.000-04:00

Do John Travolta and Tom Cruise know about this?
(ks, in case you're interested, you could change your question to, "Are you sure you aren't just a little bit Clear?")

Join the Fun (Clear Rainbow)

three dirty definitions of the week.

2006-04-14T00:40:00.000-04:00

free rider
n.

1. in sex, a partner who copulates in a manner so as to bring themselves rapidly to orgasm without allowing the other partner to climax.

2. in politics (economic), a person who chooses to receive the benefits of a public good or a positive externality without contributing to paying the costs of producing those benefits.

3. in religion, a person who adopts a specific faith only for the ostensible benefits of enjoying an afterlife devoid of damnation, and performs only the minimum requirements needed to achieve such an outcome.

Judas is my homeboy.

2006-04-13T22:40:00.000-04:00

There's this controversy about a new document that claims that Judas Iscariot's betrayal was not an act of treachery against Jesus, but instead a propitiatory act of his faith. This reminds me of that one Bob Dylan lyric from "With God on Our Side":

You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

Should Christians immediately write this off as apocryphal, or do people allow themselves to consider the fact that maybe Judas did, in fact, have God on his side?

Having grown up in a Christian household (for the record, I am no longer religious), I was always taught that Jesus's ultimate purpose on earth was to vindicate humankind--I've you've ever been to church on a regular basis, I'm sure you know John 3:16--and the ostensible way to do that was to spread his word and to sacrifice his own "perfect" life to replace the original sin of Adam, also "perfect" (Jesus is sometimes referred to as the Greater Adam). In essence, the redemption of perfection can only be begotten by the sacrifice of perfection. So, if Jesus was to die anyway, why does it matter in which manner this was accomplished? Regardless of what his role was, Judas was a player in the scheme. Could it be so bad to posit that Judas was actually a double agent, so dedicated to Jesus's cause that he was willing to sacrifice his eternal reputation?

Here's my scenario in brief.

As we already know from Jesus' miracle-wielding history, he inspires faith in his followers by nothing less than theatrics, whether you believe in the miracles or not. Jesus's and Judas's collaboration could have been nothing more than a theatrical production in order to maintain his followers. It was necessary for Jesus to become a martyr, because it would seem more tragic if he died for his beliefs. People would assume that such a belief worth suffering the death of a common criminal must be something pretty special.

The religious men hated Jesus because he was a religious and political radical. But there was no way the religious figures (who also had their hand in politics, natch) would have laid a finger on him themselves--they risked breaking the law and alienating the laity, who were in awe of Jesus's claims to be God's Son (they wanted to make him king).

Jesus knew this, so he needed someone to "betray" him. To make it more dramatic and to appeal to common logic, he needed someone who was by his side constantly and thereby in a position to do so. His other apostles were constantly arguing about which of them would be Jesus's right hand man in heaven. There was no way any of them would risk ruining their holy reputations before men as they were too afraid of what people thought (remember Peter, who denied knowing Jesus three times after his death even though everyone saw him with Jesus all the time?).

So Jesus picks Judas, who was probably less ostentatious than the others and maybe more sincere in his devotion--therefore an oddball and a prime suspect. Judas agrees. He betrays Jesus.

The Bible says that after Jesus saw what he had done, he committed suicide by hanging himself (unfortunately, the rope broke, and he took a nasty spill on the rocks below). That doesn't sound like the reaction of a traitor who was hungry for money--this sounds like someone who couldn't live with themselves after being forced to place someone they admired or loved deeply (INSERT QUEER THEORY HERE) in the way of certain death.

So, was Judas on God's side or not? I guess the devil may care.

d-y-k-e

2006-04-13T22:23:00.000-04:00

A handful of times I’ve been asked:
“Are you sure you aren’t bi?”
“Have you ever been with a guy?”
“Do you like men at all?”
“How do you know you don’t like it if you’ve never tried it?”

You know, I’m not in the habit of asking straight people, “are you sure you aren’t just a little bit queer?” That would be rude and intrusive (although it makes a nice retort to any of the above questions) and besides which, I like to think of sexuality as a personal thing, aside from one’s political beliefs. Yes, I am liberal and politically aware and yes, I like the vagina. I did not choose to love the vagina because of my feminist conscience, and frankly, I resent it when women/womyn/wimmin do. I know girls who try very, very hard to be lesbians, and I don’t quite get it. I think there’s a sense among certain hippie chicks that being queer makes you more feminist than a straight girl. But that issue is an entirely different entry all together, and we will be here all night if I have to discuss the politicization of lesbianism by feminists.
What I’m talking about is people (let’s not generalize, but mainly heterosexual males) questioning my sexuality. I tried to devise several metaphors about making choices to go here, but that was problematic in that
a) I didn’t choose to have lesbian tendencies (henceforth “LT”s) and
b) All of my metaphors were extremely lame, consisting of analogies with sandwiches and socks.

In any case, I resent the fact that people question my sexuality, as if I haven’t been thinking about it since my first blatant LT in ninth grade. From that point, a lot of things from my childhood made sense. Yes, I played with dolls and wore dresses, but I also never had a crush on a boy and was a little too infatuated with Miss Debbie, (my tae-kwon-do teacher) and at the age of 12 had some pretty kinky dreams about her. But I digress once again. This is not But I’m a Cheerleader, and I don’t need to analyze my root here and now.
Back to my point, which is that it annoys me when people assume that I’m bisexual/just need “the right man.” I spent a lot of thought on the implications of taking on a lesbian identity before I began to use that word to describe myself (although I technically prefer “dyke;” it’s funnier) but frankly, I adopted that word because it fit. You don’t need to sleep with someone of the same sex to know that you’re heterosexual (although maybe it would be nice if you did; on what grounds could the homophobes then argue?) so please don’t assume that I need to sleep with a man to know I’m a lesbian.

I like breasts and I like vaginas!

(A later entry will address the social construction of gender, so stay tuned)

"I trust you..."

2006-04-13T00:11:00.000-04:00

"I just don't trust him."

How are you supposed to feel nowadays when a significant other says this to you, or vice versa?

Let's say, for the sake of example, you have an appointment with a personal trainer. A personal trainer who is reasonably attractive at face value, if not for his fake bake and manscaped eyebrows. In another life, you could have seen this person as one half of an equation that resulted in eight minutes of drunken stupor--a really, really drunken stupor--and nothing more. Nonetheless, said gentleman was obviously of the guido nomenclature, and you do not find these type of men attractive on any level that would matter to anyone.

A certain male companion, upon seeing your "collusion" with Trainer Commando, rants and raves about how you're being ripped off. The issue is not how much you're opting to pay for a personal trainer--Trainer Commando himself is obviously at the heart of his furor. As usual, the companion has the whole situation completely wrong; when you tell him so, you gradually elicit the truth behind his castigation. And out the infamous phrase tumbles from his lips.

In the above scenario, the male companion did not stop to think that you have no attraction to this type of person in the first place. Further, in the event that you did find this person attractive, the male companion seems to think that your judgment is nonexistent--you couldn't have seen Trainer Commando's skeeviness if it hit you right on the ass while you were doing medicine ball crunches. You have no ability to think for yourself. You are gullible. You can be easily seduced.

But what happens if you did, in fact, have sweaty gym sex with Trainer Commando in the locker room? By nature of the "trust you/don't trust him" invalidation, the male companion has no legitimate reason to be angry or hurt or disappointed (at least, not with you--he trusts you). He made it known that he doesn't think it's your fault. You weren't strong enough to stave off Trainer Commando's sexual wiles. You had no ability to think for yourself. You were gullible. You were easily seduced.

And it's times like these when you wonder: does the male companion get you as a woman at all? Does he understand that if you had sex with Trainer Commando it's because you damn well wanted to and not because you were "gullible"? Does he understand that you're a woman of your bond and you have no reason to become a West Hollywood cliche? Does he get that you're a strong enough person to fend for yourself, regardless of which of the above two you opted towards?

Next time you think about saying, "I trust you--I just don't trust them" to someone, dear reader, heed your words. Don't make people feel like helpless, vapid weaklings who have no control of their actions--or worse, don't jinx your trust.

i'm an army of one.

2006-04-12T13:58:00.000-04:00

it's hard to say anything fresh or clever when you're writing about a certain set of topics, unless you want to be terribly irreverent. while one of my favorite things about myself is my sense of irreverence, this is not one of these times. i first encountered this limitation of creative writing two summers ago, when i had to attend the funeral of a girl with whom i had grown up. she had crashed her VW beetle while driving drunk, and i wanted greatly to express how disgusted i was that her many classmates showed up in their slutty clubgoing attire to say farewell to someone they hadn't even liked. whenever i tried to write, however, i invariably felt like an asshole for expressing such sentiments over my grief at the death of an old friend.

well, as i have learned, one of these particularly somber topics is the death of undeserving young people, such as Jody W. Missildine, who died this past saturday when a bomb detonated near his humvee in Tal Afar, Iraq. Private Missildine was my age (nineteen) and had, according to his grandmother, joined the army in order to pay for college.
now, i'm not going to be a pretentious liberal and make any assumptions about Private Missildine's personal views on the war in Iraq. I didn't know him, and am therefore not going to prosetylize about how "Jody died for the country he loved" or, conversely, construe him as a martyr to my cause.

let me just say that i am unhappy to live in a country in which joining the military is just what you do when you are broke or hopeless, in which risking your life for a war you may or may not support, in a country that may or may not have been very good to you is a viable option if you eventually want to go to college or break out of poverty. the fittest survive and "get up to $71,424 to help pay for college!" (http://www.goarmy.com) while the unlucky rest get blown up.

despite the fact that i don't support this war, i do have a lot of respect for those who either love their country enough to go to war, or enlist as the only viable option. in the latter case, i am also saddened and feel a little guilty that a school handed me a scholarship, while others literally have to fight for money to get the university education that we hold so highly in this country. justification for the war itself aside, it just makes me really sad that teenagers who want to go to college are getting killed in Iraq.

on top of that, i dare you to visit the "Go Army" website: "be an army of one!" "join with a buddy and train together!" get "money for college, skill training, and travel/adventure!" the myth of american individualism and frontier exploration, even as you're being asked to surrender yourself to being yet another fighting body with a shaved head.

if you think about it, we pity the girls (and sometimes boys) who work their way through school stripping (or in the case of one of my friends, as a dominatrix). regardless of whether they enjoy taking off their clothes for money, it's sad to live in a society in which that is the most economically viable option for an attractive co-ed. 'enterprising, but still sad,' we say to ourselves. but i personally would rather risk getting groped by a nasty john than get blown up in Iraq, yet one is seen as infinitely more noble.

i would just like to apologize for all the casualties of all the wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, the class system), on behalf of us kids who don't have to risk life or dignity to pay for college.

NEWS FLASH! MySpace is a Place for Friends--Of the Devil!

2006-04-10T01:26:00.000-04:00

The devilry that is MySpace is tainting kids everywhere. This newfangled trend of teenagers talking to other teenagers on "the 'Net" is taking over. Disregard the fact that your husband has been receiving virtual blowjobs from a Thai trannie on AIM since 1997. YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER!

Teenagers should be treated like gullible heirs worth billions of dollars, and they are just asking to be kidnapped by a gang of evil paparazzi who peddle kiddie porn on the side. MySpace is a breeding ground for pedophiliac paparazzi, so you should be sure to never let your child fall prey to the evil entrapment. YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER!

On MySpace, your child can post actual pictures of himself/herself! People may actually know what your child looks like, whom there is no realistic chance of ever seeing in person because you still breastfeed them six times a day and would instantly notice if there were no teeth gnawing at your wrinkled teat, and this is unfathomable for any parent. In fact, just to be one hundred percent safe, you should never let your child leave the house because real people might actually come in contact with them. YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER!

Further, your child may be posting dangerous information such as his/her birthdate, favorite color, and, perhaps worst of all, favorite celebrity. It is all too easy for a 56-year-old man from Poughkeepsie to trick your child into thinking he is the lead singer of Fall Out Boy and that he would be willing to do a performance on her birthday while wearing a posy pink bandana around his neck if only she would just meet him at the local Hot Topic. YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER!

Don't fall for the hype. Just because your teenager is not posing provocatively in photos or tagging themselves as "HotSexyTwat4U" on their MySpace page, it does not mean that their space is not full of secret devilry. When your child posts "omgz" or offers virtual hugs and/or kisses on someone else's page, this is probably Satanist code that describes explicit instructions for marijuana-induced orgies and blood sacrifice. YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER!

Make sure your children do not fall prey to these cyber-machinations of the devil, because it may be the last thing they ever do. The only space they will have to call their own is in the fiery depths of Hell.

That is all.

Someone could use some Depends.

2006-04-09T23:17:00.000-04:00

"Ladies and Gentlemen and Fellow Americans of America:

I have great confidence in myself as leader of the known world, and in my decisions as Master Chief. I firmly stand by my decision to invade, er, liberate the Iraqi people; it saddens me as a leader when one of my trusted colleagues opts to pinpoint me for wrongdoing in this matter in order to save his own tarnished reputation. Lewis "Scooter" Libby claims that I gave him permission to leak information about Valerie Plame, because I wanted to rebut former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's claims that our intelligence about Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Niger was not based in fact--as if I needed to slander someone because they ~~saw through my bullshit~~ refuted my legitimate information. As your President, I feel I owe some sort of statement in this matter.

Firstly, when I was little I had a hamster named Scooter that I accidentally dropped from a window--he did not survive. Now, I'm not calling Libby a hamster, but I will just say I have experience dropping things. I'm not saying I'll drop you for calling me out, Scooter, but I will. And when I say 'drop,' I mean secret intelligence code for 'kill dead.' We know how to do it Texas-style, and by 'Texas-style' I mean--well, I don't know what I mean, but it sounds bad-ass. Go Longhorns!

Libby's claim that I authorized the leak is completely erroneous. I assure you that I was on vacation that week. I don't remember where, but I can assure you I was not busy at work. And if, in fact, I did give permission, I probably thought he said "Uranus" instead of "uranium" because I think space jokes that are secretly butt jokes are hella funny, especially ones involving Saddam Hussein. Also, I would never use such a derogatory word as "Niger" in public. To assume that all Nigers provide uranium to terrorist countries is racist, and I am not racist. In fact, I loved what Professor X did for civil rights in this country.

God Bless America."

Leaker in Chief? Scooter Libby and George Bush (msnbc.com).

I'm hyphenating my MRS degree...

2006-03-30T21:18:00.000-05:00

We cannot marry,
But I fetishize domesticity,
Get off, shamefully, every time I straighten your collar
Like a proper housewife.
This is no butch-femme dynamic,
Outdated emulation of the patriarchy.
This must be love:
What else inspires a teenage feminist
To fantasize about casserole?

I smoke a cigarette as I write this,
Brooding back porch poet-
But contemplating prettiness, and shy smiles,
Being your trophy domestic partner.
I pride myself on a “lesbian body image”- I’ve never craved
An overflow of cleavage, or fragile limbs, or the whistling of old men
[you have to be strong to fuck with your hands,
As equals-
I never lie back and think of the queen.]

But sometimes, shamefully,
I want you to take me,
And hold me,
And kiss the tears from old pains resurfaced.
I want my body to swell
With a baby that is metaphorically, if not biologically, yours,
And I want you to balance my checkbook.

I know the vocabulary of oppressive white flight/
American dream ideology heterocentric meritocracy:
Rhetoric never equals reality,
But don’t dykes get the picket fence daydream too?

This is a test...

2006-03-25T18:53:00.000-05:00

Well, this is more than a test. It's officially the inaugural post.

We decided that we need to spread our opinion to more of the population (although opinions are like assholes, our shit smells like roses), so we decided to start this here blog and see where it goes.

As you have observed, astute reader, we will be mainly discussing our views on sex, politics, and religion--we're tired of only hearing safe, underrepresentative perspectives on these things.

However, this doesn't leave out other subjects--anything is game, as long as the topic harbors the consequence of getting sent away from a dinner table somewhere in the world.

As you'll notice, things are a little slow because we're busy saving the world. But stay tuned, reader, and you will experience the magic that is regular updates.

gw.